Revision as of 20:20, 1 December 2008

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Please remove this extremely violent and racist propaganda

In searching Wiki content, I came across this incredibly offensive wiki site. http://www.chimpout.org/pmwiki.php?n=Main.HomePage is a wiki, forum, and blog for solely overtly violent and racist propaganda. Please remove this wiki before it becomes a larger media spectacle. Thank you.

Edit Warring at Ulster Special Constabulary

User:BigDunc is edit warring at Ulster Special Constabulary by continually removing an image which he claims has a "copyvio". The non-free use rationale is correct for the article and he has been warned not to delete it. He is also ignoring the 1RR on this article and the fact that it is a contentious subject. The article history is here. As the image is a central, integral and valuable part of this article I feel he could easily have sorted out any issues with the image itself rather than edit-warring for its removal. Thunderer (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I remove a copyvio from the article and so did User:David Underdown we both explained that it was a violation yet Thunderer continued to insert the image and then went to the image page in an attempt to give a fair use rational as he knew he was in the wrong. BigDunc 15:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The removal is correct. The image serves no indespensable purpose helping to understand the article. For understanding the role of that person in the formation of the Constabulary, it is not important to see what he looked like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The use of the image is for educational and non-profit purposes. It is not a copyright violation. Thunderer (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

But it fails our internal non-free content criteria, in particular #8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:RAT clearly states # Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article. . The inclusion of Lord Brookeborough as one of the founders of the Ulster Special Constabulary is pertinent - he is discussed prominently in the article.Thunderer (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

First, the text at WP:RAT is not policy, it's just an example of a rationale that might work for some images, where those statements actually apply. Here, they don't. The photograph is quite obviously not the object of discussion in the article. The person is, the image is not. The photograph is not historically significant at all, certainly not for any relation to the Ulster Constabulary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I agree that the image does not meet fair use criteria, and appears to be purely decorative in this article. Please remember that Misplaced Pages intentionally has chosen fair use standards that exceed copyright law. Finally, it appears that you have edit warred over this issue. I only came here because I was considering enforcing a block based on a report from User:3RRBot. Please desist. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 15:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help admins - now I know why I am leaving wikipedia. Thunderer (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Coming late to the party, I agree that image is decorative and your behavior in handling it is subpar. Edit summaries are not a replacement for discussion and there needs to be a compelling reason to keep a non-free image in an article. MBisanz 04:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Notification: NPA block for cross-wiki abuse

This is a notification that I've gone a bit beyond our normal principle of sanctioning only on-site behaviour, by handing out a long NPA block for racist personal attacks made on a different wikipedia. This is about Raso mk (talk · contribs), who was repeatedly sanctioned for abuse under WP:ARBMAC earlier. The most recent attacks were made on his home mk-wiki here, they are directed against a named en-wiki contributor, in a thread titled "en-wiki", and they contain racist nationalist abuse coupled with personal insults about the victim's looks. I've had the text translated, it's pretty bad. Since this is a cross-wiki conflict situation where the same people have consistently been acting out the same set of disputes under the same identities across several projects, and the attack is clearly of a kind designed to make good-faith collaboration with the targeted person impossible on this wiki too, I don't see any sense in treating the different wikis as different worlds here in such a way that mk-wiki could act as a safe haven for this sort of unacceptable behaviour. I've blocked the main culprit, User:Raso mk, for six months, given the history of earlier en-wiki infractions, and the second guy, MacedonianBoy (talk · contribs) for two weeks (for allowing this to happen on his talk page, applauding Raso's abuse, and edging him on.)

In case somebody asks, yes, the cross-wiki identity of the editors across the different wikis is known beyond any doubt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been reviewing Raso mk's (rather incoherent) unblock request. As I've already mentioned on his talk page, I think this block is questionable and should be undone. I have no reason to doubt that what Fut.Perf. says is factually true. But WP:BP states that blocking is intended to prevent damage to Misplaced Pages, which we have traditionally understood to mean this Misplaced Pages. Because nothing indicates that Raso mk was disrupting this Misplaced Pages at the time of his block, the block appears to be ill-founded. (Of course, I don't intend to excuse Raso mk's misbehaviour, if any, by this.)

If the block is not undone, I ask that the objectionable contributions please be reproduced and translated here.  Sandstein  23:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I foresaw these objections, that's why I made the notification here, but personally I stand by this block decision. This is, in fact, a block designed to prevent disruption on this Misplaced Pages, and as such conformant to our policies. The disruption lies in the fact that Raso with his off-site attacks has poisoned the well regarding collegial cooperation with the attacked contributors here. We cannot demand of the victims (User:TodorBozhinov and User:Laveol) to keep cooperating with this person on this wikipedia in light of these continued insults as if nothing had happened. We can also not demand of them that they should pretend the insults didn't happen or weren't relevant to them, merely because they formally happened in some other place. It's been my position for a long time that wherever Wikipedians meet and interact in their roles as wikipedians, with a focus on their activities and conflicts on Misplaced Pages, be it on other wikis, on IRC, in e-mail, or in face-to-face communication, whatever they say is relevant for their standing here and should be taken into account for disciplinary purposes just as if it was actually posted here. If there exists a policy against this, that policy is counterproductive and needs to be swept aside.

The requested translation (given to me by the attacked user in e-mail) is as follows: "I see you're having troubles with the ugly face from the English Misplaced Pages! You'd better stand aside as he obviously has a problem with himself. And it's not his fault, it's the Tatar syndrome they have. It's the same case with the "vegetable" . It is incomprehensible that in the 21st century one could live and have a brain like in the Middle Ages. Communism frustrated them and they're still suffering the consequences of the culture shock they lived through in the 90s. Their ancestors and their current southern neighbours said it well: kenef raya . What a Porca Misèria."

Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the relevant prior case would be Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch#Conduct_outside_Wikipedia:

A user's conduct outside of Misplaced Pages is generally not subject to Misplaced Pages policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails or commenting on Misplaced Pages and its users in other forums.

I can see how a legal threat or outing on another site would be blockable, but from the translation provided, I do not think it rises to something blockable, particularly since it occurred on another wiki. Different wikis have different standards of conduct, just like IRC/WR/Skype has different standards of conduct. Also, I question the block as the translation of the material that is being used to support it, comes from the person requesting the block. I would expect a translation from a less-involved party if the material is the primary basis for the block. And the comment was made 5 days before the block was placed. Generally blocks are placed to prevent imminent harm. I do not see how incivility/personal attacks that stopped five days ago rise to the level of an block on another Wiki. I would support an unblock here, with the understanding that at the English Misplaced Pages, all users must abide by NPA and CIV. MBisanz 03:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

By quoting this, are you claiming the Macedonian Misplaced Pages is not a Misplaced Pages? I'll put it plain and simple: I don't edit the Macedonian Misplaced Pages, and the comments made there do not relate to my activity over on the Macedonian Misplaced Pages, but to my activity right here, on the English Misplaced Pages. They were posted on the Macedonian Misplaced Pages with the direct intention to get away with it. However, they are directed at an English Misplaced Pages contributor and have nothing to do with the Macedonian Misplaced Pages. This is an attempt at Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system, and we should be wary of Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering. We must not forget about the spirit of the policies when applying them.

As for my translation, I stand by it and I did my best to translate the text as well as possible. I wouldn't mind if someone unrelated to these events produces another translation so that it can be verified that mine was correct. The text is still available so you're welcome. Todor→Bozhinov 14:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of history here. See this, this, this, also see both Raso mk's and MacedonianBoy's block log. This is textbook WP:HARASS and Misplaced Pages:NPA#Off-wiki_attacks. Also just some weeks ago User:Crossthets was indefbanned for less than this and there was no such fuss...--Avg (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was proper, Crossthets committed harassment and personal attacks at the English Misplaced Pages and was banned from the English Misplaced Pages. If Raso mk's makes personal attacks at the English Misplaced Pages he will be handled according to the English Misplaced Pages's policies, if he makes them elsewhere, he will be handled by the policies of the other forum in which he made the attacks. MBisanz 05:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, FP, I don't think that's a good block. Blocking an editor here for misbehaving on another wiki is stepping squarely on a line I am fairly sure we don't want to cross. Except in cases of truly egregious behavior, we don't act on-wiki to things happening elsewhere; there is no damage to be prevented here. There's probably a good cause to bring this to the attention of the other wiki, however, or even perhaps at meta if the behavior is so bad it might justify a global block; but an unilateral blocking here is... icky. — Coren  19:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"There is no damage to be prevented here"? Well, we evidently disagree over what the damage is that a preventative NPA block is meant to prevent. With NPA cases that are not just one-off attacks in the heat of anger on a personal level, but indicators of an entrenched stance of politically motivated ethnic hatred, what must be prevented is not, or not only, the danger that the victims might have to hear repetitions of the same kinds of insults uttered again. What needs to be prevented is them having to interact with the ethnic haters at all. If somebody has been persistently spreading racist hate speech, we don't want them to just shut up, we want them out, banished to a place where their victims no longer have to deal with them. We cannot demand of our good-faith contributors that they should continue interacting with these people and treating them as fellow Wikipedians, to be taken seriously and to be negotiated with. The very idea of having such people continuing to show their faces here would be a continuous source of very concrete damage, as it would dampen the spirit of good-will and cooperation among the other contributors.

I see I'm probably in a minority position here, so if others think there is a consensus against me, do what you must, but I'll strongly maintain my opinion about this issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute the poisonous result of repeated personal attacks; someone who takes aggressive behavior elsewhere directed at our editors is a Bad Thing indeed. Now, if there was discussion of banning the editor as an egregious aggressor, then that outside behavior would rightly be used as evidence of bad faith and continuing misbehavior. The end result might be a ban, but then it would be because the editor, as a whole, was considered hopelessly disruptive and not because of an overt act on some other wiki. It might seem to be a fine line of distinction, but it is one I really feel we should not cross: enwp is the 800 pound gorilla; if we start enforcing our rules for behavior over behavior on other wikis, we place ourselves on shaky ethical ground. — Coren  19:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we should be concerned about "enforcing our rules on other wikis". Do you mean "ethical" problem because it would be unfair over the mk-wiki community? But it's not as if we are trying to govern over them. I'm not proposing that we should tell the mk-wiki admins what to do about him there. I don't care if they block him over there (I doubt if they would, even if somebody raised the issue there; there seems generally to be a consensus at mk-wiki that it's quite okay to keep up a healthy national fighting spirit against the neighbours.) But if they are causing problems that affect us here, why shouldn't we do our bit in protecting our project from the effects? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

To MBisanz: (1) the translation seems correct. I can read Macedonian just enough (with a help of an online dictionary) that I can verify it says what the translation says it says. If some nuance should not be rendered quite precisely, there are enough Macedonian users here who can correct it. Raso has not (as far as I can comprehend his unblock request babble) actually claimed the charge is wrong. (2) The insults have not "stopped" ("five days ago"), they are part of a campaign that has gone on for close to a year, including e-mails, postings here, postings there and all sorts of other things. (3) As for the "off-wiki" nature of the behaviour: I simply don't buy it. When we deal with personal attacks as "disruptive", it is never the attack in and of itself that is disruptive. It is the social effects caused by attacks that are disruptive. The attack was spoken over there and five days ago; its social effects are right here and now. These effects – the degrading of a collegial cooperation atmosphere - are tangible, very real, very present, very directly affect this project, and were very much calculated and intended as such. – You quoted the Arbcom there. Honestly, I don't give a damn what Arbcom thinks about this. I'm perfectly prepared to IAR the Arbcom here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest moving this thread to WP:AN then, the Arbitration in the page title is a bit confusing to the topic being discussed. MBisanz 09:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This looks like the right page for the thread, although I share misgivings about the block. As someone who is currently sysopped on three WMF projects I deal with cross wiki grudges from time to time. These things tend to get handled on an ad hoc basis. Allow me to articulate a few guideposts.

• Clean slate - Some Wikimedians extend a clean slate to users at each project, disregarding all behavior that didn't occur at that project. This has the advantage of giving editors who ran into trouble on one site the ability to start over and become valued contributors. Its disadvantage is vulnerability to deliberate gaming by individuals who exploit good faith to dodge blocks.
• Shorter leash - As an alternative to the 'clean slate' approach, this welcomes editors who've had rocky histories on other projects so long as the problematic behavior doesn't recur. If the problem reappears at the new project, the editor's prior conduct and block record at a sister project influences the administrative response. So an editor who was sitebanned for vandalism at one project may edit another so long as he or she doesn't vandalize. If they do vandalize, warnings and blocks would escalate at an accelerated rate. I prefer this approach to the clean slate.
• Grudges - Cross-wiki hounding is a matter of particular concern. Suppose Editor A has been blocked three times for personal attacks against Editor B at one project, and A goes to a second project to vandalize B's user page. That, in my view, is more serious than random vandalism because it creates and sustains a hostile environment for a particular contributor. Not all Wikimedians agree with that analysis, though.
• Porting - Where is the problem moving? Hypothetically, if Editor C has been blocked for two weeks for edit warring at Commons and starts edit warring at Wikinews, I may block C at Wikinews but I wouldn't automatically reblock them at Commons. As long as C doesn't resume edit warring at Commons they're welcome to contribute there. If edit warring does resume at Commons, though, it might be reasonable to weigh the recent problem at Wikinews--especially if the problem bears a direct relation (such as edit warring over an image that illustrates the Wikinews article).

So although this list has no formal status at all, it might be a better idea to unblock with a caution. That particular insult isn't at the level of threats or coercion which would normally merit separate remedy at this project. If Raso mk ports that behavior back to this site he'd face arbitration discretionary remedies. And the acting administrator might exercise discretion based upon cross-wiki pattern behavior. Hope that rationale makes sense to fellow editors; few guidelines exist in this realm. Durova 20:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the "clean slate" approach between pairs of projects such as enwiki vs commons, the point being that these projects typically involve different types of activities, people deal with different issues in each, so if two users meet again on commons after having had a conflict on enwiki, there's at least a chance they'll interact in different roles and on the basis of a different set of parameters. Not so here – the people involved are enacting a single set of disputes, all of the same nature and along the same national frontlines, across all the wikis in question. In fact, the recent attack on mk-wiki had nothing to do with mk-wiki at all, it was Raso-the-enwiki-editor speaking with MacedonianBoy-the-enwiki-editor about TodorBozhinov-the-enwiki-editor. "Clean slate" makes no sense at all there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Both you and I are 'shorter leash' proponents. Where we differ is porting. Durova 22:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I don't see there's anything to "port" here, for the real focus of the issue has never moved from one project to the other at all in this case. Also, your hypothetical example, of edit-warring, is really not comparable. Ethnic hate speech poisons the atmosphere between editors and groups of editors, as human beings, in a far more lasting manner than edit-warring. If I have edit-warred with somebody on project A, that doesn't necessarily stop me from cooperating with them on project B, if the same dispute doesn't also arise there. But if I know that person thinks I and my whole nation are scum, there's simply no way I can move on and continue working with them on a different project (discussing articles about that very ethnic group!) as if nothing had happened. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The rationale is the moment he carries that behavior back here to this project, then it becomes blockable here. In other words, we wait for him to repeat the behavior on this project. And the administrative response may consider the cross-project pattern when and if it ports back to this site. Makes sense? Durova 22:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. It doesn't answer my point. The damage is being done here and now, and we must prevent it from being continued here and now. (The damage being, as I said, his mere presence, not necessarily any further insults.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Their behaviour was here, on this project, they don't need to carry it back anywhere. I'm not an MK wiki editor and I have no intention to become one. The comments were posted on the MK wiki for one single reason, which I'm repeating once again: to get away with it; they have no effect on the MK wiki, they are aimed at an English Misplaced Pages contributor and affect the English Misplaced Pages only. And yes, to confirm what Future said, I won't be able to co-operate with these people on the English Misplaced Pages anymore. I don't want them around and I don't see why anybody would. Todor→Bozhinov 13:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not defending Rašo's insults, Bozhinov has made it very clear that he "knows" that Macedonian (Rašo's language) is a dialect of Bulgarian (Bozhinov's language) and that Macedonians (Rašo's people) are Bulgarians (Bozhinov's people). This is all on en-wiki. So why should Rašo, or anyone else, be expected to cooperate, or dare I ask, be civil to someone who makes such statements? Poisoning the well only works if the well initially contains clean water. Here, it never did. BalkanFever 06:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah, divergent opinions about the Macedonian language and nationality are just that: opinions. Which Todor is entirely entitled to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Opinions on the psychological state of Bulgarians? BalkanFever 08:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that itself a sanctionable ethnic attack? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Grandmaster

Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Grandmaster is placed under supervision under AA2, the amended remedies gives the administrators the right to impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Grandmaster was involved both in AA1 and AA2 and was already topic banned. Grandmaster has a history of distorting sources. He just did it again by totally ignoring thousands of words of discussion. Here 32 works have been provided to support that the accurate term was Tatar or Tartar. He reverted and claimed on the summary: Please do not distort the source while he was the one who distort the source.

The source Grandmaster added and even quoted it doesn't supports his edit. The initial version was between the Armenians and Caucasian Tartars (modern Azerbaijanis) throughout the Caucasus in 1905—1907. Not only does the initial version which was tempered by both Dacy69 and Grandmaster accurate, but it even clarified Tatars relation with modern Azerbaijanis and devoid of any different interpretation. Whats even more insulting is that the source he added basically says the same thing. Grandmasters edit amounts to replacing Dutch to German and then on parenthesis claiming they were refereed to as Dutch. I don't have the energy to fight on such minor things which should not cause any trouble for any reasonable editor, so what I expect is that an administrator explain Grandmaster once and for all why Romans are not called Italians, Dutch are not called Germans etc. It's so obvious that I can not suppose anymore that he does not know what he is doing. Several other users and I have attempted to explain this to him for months, in return we were always ignored. VartanM (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster's misuses and distortions of the word Azerbaijani are not "minor things" because they are part of a larger campaign of POV warring that he and others are engaged it. That "Romans are not called Italians" example is worth exploring more to illustrate the reasons behind that POV warring. During the 1930s, the Mussolini regime would often produce propaganda equating being a true Italian with being a "Roman" of the "Roman Empire" in order to encourage or manipulate the Italian population into behaving in a particular way and to justify that behaviour to both themselves and the world. The regime of modern-day Azerbaijan is misusing the word "Azerbaijani" in a similar way - to invent or distort history and ethnicity for its own ends. Misplaced Pages should not be hijacked into propagating those inventions and distortions. Meowy 17:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I also think it isn't minor, Parishan has been extensively involved in this too. Meowy you'd be delighted (I'm being sarcastic) you have have not seen this, when Parishan attempted (and is still attempting) to introduce the Russian (then Soviet) school of thought, where to lay claim on Ottomans (and then Turkey) the Russians attempted to associate the Turks of Anatolia to 'Azerbaijani Turks' (a term they coined). He actually revert warred over this. Apparently in Anatolia the lingua franca was not Turkish but Azeri :) Note that Parishan's similar disruptions were partially documented in AA2 and ignored. After several instances of incivility, edit warring and POV pushing and formal warning, he still isn't restricted. - Fedayee (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm not under any supervision. The parole I (along with other parties to the first AA case) was placed on more than 1 year ago expired. Despite that I agreed to voluntarily abide by 1RR rule and never ever violated it. So I don't understand, which rule I did violate? Did I make more than 1 rv? No. Did I fix the inaccuracy in the article? Yes, I did. The info that I added is supported by sources and is factually accurate. Azerbaijanis were called Tatars in the Russian empire, same as all other Turkic people, since Russian at the time did not make much distinction among them. So what's the problem? This is not a place to discuss content disputes, if you happen to disagree with other editors, seek dispute resolution, and don't ask the admins to ban your opponents to eliminate the opposition. It does not work that way. Also, I would like to ask the admins to put an end to constant personal attacks on me by Meowy. I'm really tired of constant bad faith assumptions and incivility by this user. This is the latest example, he says on talk of Shusha: I question Grandmaster's moral suitability to be editing articles This is the final version of his comment: , he removed some of his aggressive rhetoric, but it is still incivil and a personal attack. Grandmaster (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Grandmaster is not under those specific restrictions anymore. And yes, this is not the proper forum to discuss the misuse of the word "Azerbaijani" problem (though having Grandmaster point that out is rather like the kettle calling the pot black, because that editor has often placed spurious or off-topic complaints into this noticeboard). It is a content dispute, but one which affects dozens of articles, not just one or two, and concerns the meaning and use of a specific word. So using an article's talk page to confront the problem is not the longterm answer. Could an administrator suggest a more appropriate forum? Meowy 21:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree with the comment made by Meowy which Grandmaster is quoting and I hope an administrator for once will take the time to read the comment above and decide whatever or not Grandmaster is being honest.

Grandmaster had no problem with the wording before April 24, 2007 before he decided to changed it. The slow revert war followed even with the Arbcom restrictions in place, and finally it was discussed that just as the title of the article the info in it was also accurate and reflected the title. The article was first named Armenian-Tatar, then was renamed without justification then renamed back to it's original name after it was shown that was what it was called by sources of the time and most of the modern ones. Parishan came out of nowhere and renamed it again, claiming there was no consensus etc...

Grandmaster's change from Tatar to Azerbeijani is OR, while he is partly right that they are mostly the same people, it was already provided and sourced that most nomadic people in the region (not only Turkic speaking) were tagged with the Turkic speaking people and called Tatar. And by changing Tatar to Azerbeijani Grandmaster is deliberately attempting to mislead those who read the article.

If the evidence of dishonesty isn't clear here, I invite administrators to check the edit summary he left when he asked me to stop distorting the source, while he was the one doing just that.

Lastly I would like you to note the sorry stub state the article was put by Grandmaster, thats despite the 30+ sources available in the talkpage. He has effectively stalled the progress of this article, just so he can push a certain POV. --VartanM (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically there's a group of users, who push the same Armenian POV that Azerbaijani people did not exist before 1930s. They try to push it here too, despite not being supported by a single reliable source. Those 30 sources VartanM refers to only name the hostilities after the name that was used in the Russian empire, but none of them says that those Tatars who lived in Caucasus were not the same people as modern day Azerbaijanis. On the contrary, we have the sources that say quite the opposite, and those sources are used in the article. By looking at the history of the article it is clear that the article was stable since October 27, until on November 27, one month later, VartanM came and reverted the article to the older version: Note that he never even tried to apply for any sort of dispute resolution, the sole purpose of his revert seems to be getting reverted and then report it here, claiming to ban those who happen to disagree with his POV edit from the article. This tactics previously worked on some other articles, which encourages such behavior. I hope the admins reviewing this report will take time to look into everyone's behavior. Grandmaster (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you just dismiss 30+ reliable neutral sources? And thats from someone who couldn't come up with one decent source to back-up his failed attempt at OR?. Your own source says exactly what was written in that article. VartanM (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano II, Giano II, Giano II is... (just kidding, I hope for once someone will read this and see how Grandmaster is being dishonest) Grandmaster claims that the majority position has no reliable source. Several were provided not limited to the title. And I'll provide here some of them. (Grandmaster's dishonesty can be exposed by the fact that he claims the majority position can not be backed by any reliable sources)

Azerbaijani national identity is a recent growth, following a period in the early twentieth century when Azeris identified themselves with other … (New Terror, New Wars, Paul Gilbert, Edinburgh University Press, 2003 p. 61)

Azerbaijan features an official national identity based on an improbable blend... In actuality there has been little historical basis for national identity formation among Azeri elites. ... (National Identity and Globalization, Douglas W. Blum, Cambridge University Press, (2007) p. 106 )

Azerbaijani national identity is a relatively recent formation: before World War I, the people of this territory were alternatively referred to as Turks, Tatars, and Caucasian Muslims. (Language Policy in the Soviet Union, Lenore A. Grenoble, Springer, 2003, p. 124)

In fact, the very name Azerbaijani was not widely used until the 1930s; before that, Azerbaijani intellectuals were unsure about whether they should call themselves Caucasian Turks, Muslims, Tatars, or something else. (Modern Hatreds, Stuart J. Kaufman, Cornell University Press, 2001, p.56)

It was already told to Grandmaster that all Tatars in the Caucasus were not all Turkic speaking. Two sources were provided to him: In 1897 'Tatars'-which officially included most Muslim groups... (Socialism in Georgian Colors: The European Road to Social Democracy, 1883-1917, Harvard University Press (2005) p. 19). Nomads, be it Kurds, Circassians were also counted as Tatars. Here is another from Britannica 1911, it says the same thing: The Tatars of the Caucasus seem to be for the most part Azerbaijan Turks mingled with Armenian, Georgian, Lesghian and other blood. But the name is often loosely applied to any Mahommedan Caucasian tribe. So definitely Azerbaijani does not exactly equal Tatar.

Grandmaster is also, as repeated countless numbers of times, very dishonest, the article was created by a Georgian user, with the Tatar term, (something which Grandmaster claims being an Armenian POV) and the usage of Tatar. Grandmaster was actually the first one to erase it and place it in parenthesis.

The purpose of Grandmaster's POV pushing is to name all of the Turkic people north of Araks river Azerbaijani, before there was any Azerbaijan north of the river. Dozens and dozens of sources were provided, and Grandmaster still distorts, twist and is being dishonest by answering as if there was some rational opposition between both parties. But we have yet to see anyone taking the time to read what the problem is, and how he's being dishonest. --VartanM (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And in republic of Azerbaijan media, Armenia is sometimes called "occupied western Azerbaijan". But it's not just north of the Araks river - for the claim to remain logical Azerbaijan also extends the claim far into Turkish territory and says that all Turks living in eastern Turkey are actually "Azerbaijanis". Of course on an official level this isn't said much by Azerbaijan because it would anger Turkey. There was an editor who recently edited the Erzurum article to claim that Erzurum was an Azerbaijani city. Meowy 21:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is from the article about Azerbaijan from Britannica, written by Ronald Suny:

As social resentments festered, particularly in times of political uncertainty, ethnic and religious differences defined the battle lines; bloody clashes between Azerbaijanis and local Armenians took place in 1905 and 1918.

They were referred to as “Tatars” by the Russians; the ethnonym Azerbaijani (azarbayjanli) came into use in the prerevolutionary decades at first among urban nationalist intellectuals.

Another source:

Until the 1905-6 Armeno-Tatar (the Azeris were called Tatars by Russia) war, localism was the main tenet of cultural identity among Azeri intellectuals.

Willem van Schendel, Erik Jan Zürcher. Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. I.B.Tauris, 2001. ISBN 1860642616, 9781860642616, p. 43

So the people in Transcaucasia, whom Russian called Tatars, were Azerbaijanis. It could be that they included other Muslims among them, but the majority of those people were Azerbaijani. That's what the sources say. Again, this is not a place to complain about content disputes, take it to dispute resolution, you never even attempted to get this issue resolved via DR, instead, you chose to ask the admins to ban those who happen to disagree with you. Grandmaster (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would like to ask the admins once again to put an end to personal attacks on me. VartanM says: Grandmaster still distorts, twist and is being dishonest. I wonder if WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are still in force here? Civility supervision is a part of VartanM and Meowy's paroles, but they feel free to attack other users, and no one tells them to stop. Grandmaster (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is needless to add anything else, as again, Grandmaster is substituting decades of scholarship and publications for one quote from Britannica over and over again. When several times it was presented to him, that Adil Baguirov and his friends massively campaigned to have Sunys head out from Britannica. The same thing was attempted for Encarta. Britannica’s example shows more the way Adil Baguirov’s team threats results than actual scholarship. Besides Britannica is a tertiary source not secondary. For the rest, I’m not even going to waste my time, when obviously you are still attempting to distort by your second source which says Azeri and not Azerbaijani. You know that there was endless of discussions about this and you are still doing this as if it has never taken place. VartanM (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this particular noticeboard is the correct place to discuss this issue of the use and misuse of the word "Azerbaijani". The whole issue need to be carefully presented, needs to be discussed withthe aim of establishing a Misplaced Pages policy on its use, and should not based on a discussion about the actions of individual editors. Can administrators suggest an alternative venue for this to take place? Meowy 16:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientology and related articles

I have been informed that this is the proper area for this, so I am moving it from WP:AN/I to here. Please bear with me, as I have copied the current discussion there verbatim, to provide full context. --GoodDamon 18:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Shutterbug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a long-term single-purpose account that edits solely at articles concerning Scientology, previously under the name User:COFS, which is an acronym for Church of Scientology. Shutterbug openly admits to one conflict-of-interest, to his/her benefit, as a Scientologist.

However, after a long period of inactivity, Shutterbug has begun editing in the Scientology article again, as well as several sub-articles. In the discussions that have followed, an old ArbCom case involving Shutterbug has been brought up. The ArbCom case ended with some minor temporary topic bans and blocks, but little else. Part of the reasoning that lead to this result was that Shutterbug (or COFS, at the time) claimed a particular Church of Scientology-owned IP address he/she had edited from, 205.227.165.244, including this accidental edit, was a proxy used by various hotels and such. Shutterbug recently reiterated the claim here. During the ArbCom, this claim was apparently given the benefit of the doubt, as a checkuser revealed that several similar single-purpose accounts had all edited from the same address and other Church-related address ranges. The users in question were:

• COFS
• CSI LA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Grrrilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Makoshack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I haven't been able to figure out why this proxy claim was given credence, as I can't see any particular evidence one way or the other in the ArbCom, and the single-purpose editing definitely lends itself to an appearance of conflicts-of-interest, if not sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry. But until recently, I was happy to let the decision stand; I wasn't even involved in the ArbCom, and was inclined to defer to the administrators in that case.

I now think the decision was a mistake. This user, these accounts, and every IP address previously confirmed by checkuser as being associated with these accounts has been used overwhelmingly in Scientology-related edits and minimally in anything else. Were these IP addresses those of hotel proxies and the like, one would expect a host of non-Scientology related edits, but per these Wikiscanner results, there are few if any to be found.

Lacking any evidence to the contrary aside from Shutterbug's word, the bulk of the user's edits come from official Church of Scientology-owned machines, and the claim of an IP proxy used by "hundreds if not thousands" is implausible. Had these accounts and these IP addresses not edited so single-mindedly in Scientology-related articles, it would perhaps be more plausible, but as is, the evidence is pretty compelling that Shutterbug -- as well as the other accounts -- have conflicts-of interest affecting their abilities to edit neutrally, or at the very least the appearance thereof.

There is also an issue of incivility. In this edit, I decried the sudden battling over the article after months of calm, and accurately described a particular inappropriate edit performed by a different user. In response, Shutterbug said "Let's talk and no personal attacks, please." As I had not made one, and I didn't appreciate the accusation, I asked Shutterbug to retract it, and asked again on the user's talk page. The response speaks for itself.

My thoughts at this point, unless I've missed something that completely negates my COI concerns, is that Church of Scientology IP addresses simply shouldn't be used to edit Scientology-related articles, and accounts associated with those IP addresses should be topic-banned as probable WP:ROLE accounts. --GoodDamon 09:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a short-term topicban would illustrate whether or not this is an SPA. Ask the user to stay away from any content related to COS for a month, and see what they do. If they do it and contribute elsewhere, excellent. If not, obviously we are dealing with someone inserting biased info, and should be dealt with accordingly. Thoughts? //roux   09:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

My only problem with that is that if the user reads what you have just said, they have a clear way to 'prove' their innocence and continue however after. — neuro 10:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point.. so... how about an indef topicban from COS articles until a couple of admins (to be named) agree that this isn't an SPA, topic ban to be at least a month? //roux   14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

See the ArbCom results I mentioned. This has already been tried. Shutterbug was topic-banned October 2nd, 2007 for one month. During that month, Shutterbug did not contribute to a single article. Shutterbug did, however, contribute to a few incident reports and checkusers associated with other users who edit in the same area of interest. So he/she was actively involved in the encyclopedia for that month, but not in any content capacity. --GoodDamon 15:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Justanother (Justallofthem)

As a party to the original arbitration, I think that is is appropriate that I comment here. As much as I respect GoodDamon, he seems to be trying to reopen an arbitration in the improper forum for such an effort. The arbitrators were well aware of Shutterbug's POV and history of editing from a CofS-owned proxy server and made no remedy that restricted her editing. If GoodDamon thinks that they did not make the correct decision then he should present his evidence to the arbitrators and ask that they reopen the case, not make his case here. The other point GoodDamon brings up in incivility. Incivility is a much-disputed issue but if Shutterbug was uncivil then perhaps she deserves a warning though I see little in the way of objectionable incivility in the diffs provided. However, I cannot stress enough that GoodDamon should move his doubts about the arb outcome to the arb page. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC) This is not relevant here as the main thrust of my comment was that GoodDamon bring his issue to this forum. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe the ArbCom is actually the correct forum anymore. When there is ample evidence of a serious WP:COI, and the only credible counter-argument -- upon which the ArbCom result was largely based -- turns out to be rather incredible, it ceases to be a content dispute, and content dispute resolution mechanisms are no longer the appropriate venue for dealing with it. Believe me, I thought long and hard about this, and coming to the decision to file this as an incident report was not easy. But this is the proper venue for it. Shutterbug and several older accounts edit from Church-owned IP addresses, and those addresses produce, almost without exception, content in Church-related articles. The proxy argument does not hold up, so we can only conclude that what we see with our eyes is in fact what's there, a conflict of interest.

Note I do not propose banning the accounts in question outright. But I seriously doubt they will choose to edit in other areas. They are well-established as single-purpose accounts. A single-purpose account editing with a conflict of interest is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. --GoodDamon 16:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As a party to the original arbitration, I think that is is appropriate that I comment here. I see little activity on the part of Shutterbug that is deserving of the attention of AE. I like and respect GoodDamon but the entire thrust of this thread is his IDONTLIKEIT evaluation of the findings and recommendations of the arbitration. He is not asking for enforcement, he is asking that the arbitration be redone. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If you like. However, part of the original ArbCom was this statement of principle: "Editors who have duties, allegiances, or beliefs that prevent them from making a genuine, good-faith effort to edit from a neutral point of view in certain subject areas are expected to refrain from editing in those subject areas. Instead, they may make suggestions or propose content on the talk pages of affected articles."

I think it is now firmly established that the proxy argument is implausible and unlikely. I do not say this lightly: It is probably a lie. If the editor or editors behind the accounts and IP addresses in question are in fact "working" on behalf of the Church of Scientology, then it is a violation of this principle. And considering the ratio of edits to Scientology-related articles versus non-Scientology-related articles, this appears to be the case. Look... I understand how you feel, I really do. But once it came out how unlikely the proxy argument was to be true, this stopped being a content issue and started being an issue of Misplaced Pages abuse. --GoodDamon 20:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no flaw in the "proxy argument" and nothing new has been "discovered". The consensus of the arb was, IMO, that those editors that had access to the proxy likely were connected in some way to the church and because of this the lot of them may be treated as one editor for the purpose of consensus building or 3RR issues, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision#Multiple editors with a single voice and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision#Use of Church of Scientology-owned IPs. The solution of the arbitrators was to place the Scientology articles under article probation, not to impose sanctions against Shutterbug (COFS) or any of the others. You have not uncovered any new news GoodDamon, you simply seem to disagree with the findings and recommendations of the arb. That is your right but it is not an enforcement issue. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand by what I said concerning the proxy argument. The IP addresses in question simply have too few edits in areas unrelated to Scientology to plausibly be proxies associated with hundreds or thousands of users. The many-editors-one-voice decision does not preclude someone later taking a look and realizing the proxy argument is bogus. --GoodDamon 20:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't get your point. The "proxy argument" was simply in support of the claim that these editors were not sockpuppets or even meatpuppets; that they were simply different Scientologists in, often, different parts of the world that likely only knew one another through Misplaced Pages and were not part of some organized cabal of Scientologists. Obviously that cannot be proven one way or the other but the edit history and behavior is certainly consistent. Scientology critics do a much better job of coordinating editing here than Scientologists do, probably because only the critics are trying. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDamon

At this point, I would like to take a step back and ask that previously uninvolved administrators look at the ArbCom and determine if continued involvement by these editors constitutes violation of the ArbCom ruling in light of what I perceive as the likelihood of Church of Scientology involvement. I would characterize the editor or editors as:

• Confirmed single-purpose accounts
• Confirmed biased accounts that edit from a particular POV
• Confirmed sockpuppets, based on the checkuser results during the ArbCom
• Most likely WP:ROLE accounts inappropriately working on behalf of the Church of Scientology

If these characterizations do not bear out, or if this is not the proper venue for this discussion, I will gladly accept that. --GoodDamon 20:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Jayen466

As per the arbcom decision, the Scientology article is on probation.

Looking at the edit war that led to article being protected I count the following reverts:

• Reverts by GoodDamon: 4RR

• Reverts by Shutterbug: 4RR

• Spidern and Cirt had two reverts each.

I believe GoodDamon and Shutterbug should be trout-slapped and told not to do it again. Since Shutterbug has done this sort of thing before, s/he should perhaps be restricted to just posting to the talk page for a week or so.

IMO, the whole edit war was a very silly and entirely unnecessary episode, largely caused by Shutterbug making sweeping changes without prior discussion on the talk page. All the more regrettable since at least some of the changes – chronological fixes etc. – would seem to have made sense and might well have gotten support on the talk page. Jayen466 22:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In each of those cases, well-sourced material was removed or altered without prior discussion. If you feel restoring those edits violated the ArbCom ruling, I encourage you to open a case here for that as well. But I stand by those reverts; for some context, in this edit I restored citations to Time Magazine and a Salon news article that had been removed in this edit with an edit summary of "rm non-notable/opinion". If it is a violation of the ArbCom case to undo egregiously poor edits such as that, I will be very much surprised and will seek changes to the case itself, as frankly... that's just plain silly. --GoodDamon 22:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Clear and obvious vandalism is exempt from 3RR; "edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt". It's usually better to wait and let someone else revert it – which will demonstrate consensus – or raise it on the talk page and/or AN/I than revert someone 4 times in a row yourself. Jayen466 03:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

On closer inspection, I don't think those edits qualify as 4RR.

• The first edit occurred at the beginning of the brief edit war. I reverted the re-addition of several primary sources. To Shutterbug's credit, he/she didn't choose to reinsert the primary sources, and instead went with just a secondary source. I did not contest it.
• The second and third edits were unrelated to the first and involved a section of the lead. I did reach 2RR here, and perhaps should have waited for someone else to revert, but felt it would be a good point to remind Shutterbug of WP:BRD.
• The fourth edit was unrelated to any of the others, and you already know about that one.

In any event, I've voluntarily extracted myself from the article until all this is resolved. --GoodDamon 05:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayen466 11:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I had forgotten about that particular clause. I'll be more mindful of it in the future, and appreciate you pointing it out to me. --GoodDamon 15:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Shutterbug

Why did I not just get rid of my user name and started editing with another one, if it am such a red flag? That's rather stupid, isn't it? I did not because the truth is that the 205.227.165.244 IP is/was a proxy used by hundreds if not thousands of people. As I said before and there is no evidence saying otherwise: I occasionally used it when being in a Church of Scientology facility, waiting for someone etc. Further, the diversity of the subjects being edited from that IP between 2004 and 2006 underlines that there have been more than one editors on this IP (wikiscanner). I was not prepared for the amount of hostility I am being subjected with now and I wasn't a year ago when I got surprised with an avalanche of accusations that had nothing to do with real life. Ok, the Arbcom determined there have been several other people editing under the same IP. I think that was a true finding with no significance especially as I even volunteered this information as much as I could. As an additional note: Cirt is a known and longterm anti-scientology editor who went by the user names of Smeelgova, Smee and WilhelmvonSavage. Per her edit history she works 8-11 hours per day on Wikiprojects, almost exclusively working on anti-religious subjects and its peripheral subjects (like the names of Scientology members, anti-religious books and the like). Though I welcome the work and information she provides I don't think she should be included in this "neutral" discussion. Lastly it is an old trick on Misplaced Pages to attack the editor with administrative rules instead of concentrating on making better articles. I have been subject to this abuse of Misplaced Pages policy before and seems to happen again. Result: dozens of text pages filled with discussions, zero articles improved. Maybe there is some kind of protection against "using Misplaced Pages policy to shut up opposing editors"? Shutterbug (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There is some truth to what Shutterbug is saying. No one complained about the edit war, which was the work of several editors, the complaint was about who Shutterbug is. I'd be just as happy packing this up and getting back to doing something useful, like discussing how we can improve the article. Jayen466 22:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if it turns out I'm a complete goober for opening this, and I get that trout-slapping you mentioned, I would rather see this come to its natural conclusion than close it prematurely. If I'm wrong, I want to know I'm wrong. At the moment, I am voluntarily recusing myself from editing or commenting in any Scientology-related article until administrators have finished reviewing this and make some sort of pronouncement. I really don't think much in the way of article improvement will happen until then. --GoodDamon 23:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Just checking into the edit history of the celebrity centre, I would like to ask Cirt to consider that edit summaries like this one and this one may come across as dehumanising or baiting, and at any rate may not be conducive towards establishing a more collaborative atmosphere. Shutterbug's deletion in Celebrity Centre had some justification under WP:NOT#NEWS; at the very least, it is an issue that editors could in good faith disagree on, and it would have been kinder to reflect that in the edit summary. Jayen466 23:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sadly, this is basically what I expected. There is no evidence that this IP address is or was a proxy shared by "hundreds if not thousands of people." That's more or less what this report is about. Due to the nature of its edits, and the edits of logged in users on that address, the chances that "hundreds if not thousands of people" would edit Misplaced Pages solely to add pro-Scientology material to it is vanishingly small. --GoodDamon 23:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, I think you have a misunderstanding. The IP address belongs to the proxy server that a large number of Scientology organizations worldwide use to access the internet. The ""hundreds if not thousands of people" are using that proxy server to do the myriad of things that people do on the internet. Only a few are editing Misplaced Pages. I have a totally analogous situation in my life. Occasionally I edit from work. There are prolly well over 9,000 people that access the internet through my work proxy. Yet only a few edit Misplaced Pages at all as far as I can tell from the edits coming from that IP address. So if I say that thousands of people use the IP address does the fact that only a few edit here prove me a liar? Does that clear things up? You should really AGF a bit more and lighten up on Shutterbug. She does not deny having a POV. Let me tell you, these articles are pretty galling to anyone that has any knowledge of Scientology beyond spoon-fed criticism. Galling in that they are just plain wrong in many instances. All the bad is blown out of proportion, all the good is minimized and distorted. Critics race to include the latest bit of negative material but don't bother to include the positive. How many are racing to include recent statements by Germany's minister of security that he found no evidence that any of the objectionable material in Hubbard's writing is practiced in Scientology? Yet our critics love to fill articles with their original research based on primary materials. They scream when the primary material explains Scientology as a philosophy in manner that can be understood yet support out-of-context primary materials that cast Scientology in a bad light. You can see that disparity in these two articles that I just put up for AFD, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality and Scientology and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Scientology and sex (2nd nomination). Shutterbug's perspective is welcome here. Feel free to haul her back if she crosses a line. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A few words here. Justallofthem's assertions about proxies are unsupported by the Committee's findings. Several parts of the decision reject his claims:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Responsibility_of_organizations
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Multiple_editors_with_a_single_voice
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Use_of_Church_of_Scientology-owned_IPs
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Recruiting

For months I counseled Justanother in good faith that the 'proxy' argument he was attempting to advance did not serve the best interests of his faith. No evidence was forthcoming from the organization's IT staff to bolster the claim. Then while the arbitration case was underway the Wikiscanner came out and the weakness of the 'proxy' argument got demonstrated empirically in the form of real world news coverage about Scientology-based IP edits to Misplaced Pages. That news reflected more poorly for that religion than whatever PR problem they were trying to correct. And also, people who actively disliked that religion made the most of the negative press.

It was my hope when that case concluded that Justanother, Shutterbug, and other editors would learn from their mistakes and turn over a new leaf. Only one really did: he now edits as Cirt. Cirt has contributed 11 featured articles, 13 featured portals, 31 good articles, and 47 DYK entries. He has become an administrator on three WMF projects including this one, has become an OTRS volunteer, and was elected a member of the Arbitration Committee on Wikinews. It is my earnest wish that editors from both sides of the dispute would make a similar turnaround. (Heck, I'd love to see that turnaround in any dispute). If any Scientologist adjusts to WMF standards that well it would give me pride to nominate them for adminship.

So in the holiday spirit (since it's reasonable to guess most of the editors associated with this thread are American?) let's give thanks for the progress that's happened so far and put this discussion on hold through the holiday weekend. Requesting as a courtesy: please suspend discussion. I'll be around off and on (working on a ragtime composer biography--something much more to my taste than this subject). Best wishes all and happy Thanksgiving. Durova 00:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Durova, I think you are confused. I am not one of the editors affected by the IP issue. I would be interested to know exactly what you find unconvincing in the explanation and personal analogy I give above of why Shutterbug's "proxy argument" makes sense because you are being kinda vague. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Not at all confused; I knew from the start that you weren't covered directly by that particular IP issue. Yet you advanced the proxy rationale then and you continue to now. That you do so is more than a little surprising since it generates such a substantial PR exposure to your religion. This site has many uninvolved volunteers who would be glad to address POV attacks against any religion. Perhaps because yours comes under attack more than most, it may have been hard to accept that feedback. Neither Misplaced Pages nor Scientology benefitted from the press that the Wikiscanner brought, yet you have to agree that my cautions were absolutely on target a year and a half ago. Now I'm counseling you that you're running a similar risk again. We were lucky the COFS arbitration case didn't get noticed then. The case is old news, but your actions and Shutterbug's could make it relevant again. Suppose for a moment that this advice is clueful and sincere: it's been right before, and it's been right in ways that would have helped you if you had listened. Durova 00:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do not think I am advancing the argument you believe I am. Please reread my explanations and comments to GoodDamon. I personally have no exposure here, I just don't want to see Shutterbug railroaded by out-of-process actions or misreadings of the results of the previous action. If the arbitrators want to reopen the COFS case that is fine with me but I see little need to. Enjoy your turkey-day, Durova.--Justallofthem (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If you still suppose I'm addressing any personal exposure on your part in relation to the IP server issue, then you've missed the point. Best wishes and happy holidays. Durova 02:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I take it that you are warning that abuse by Church-connected editors will reflect badly on the Church. First off, that is no concern of mine. Meaning that it not my business what the Church does or does not do and how it reflects on them. I hope and expect that the Church acts honorably and if not then that is on them. I just do the best I can for my part and as an individual Scientologist. Secondly and more germane, Shutterbug has stated that she has no official PR capacity in the Church and that her edits are her own. She edits from her POV but so what. So does just about everyone else that edits in the Scientology articles. Anyway, there is little point in going back and forth further on this. Take care. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Another note, Durova: Did the Arbcom try to find out from the Church of Scientology what this IP address is? Did you or anyone involved that time care to ask this question to anyone? I can't remember that. Instead assumptions and outright lies are being repeated over and over again. This is really frustrating. Shutterbug (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Very glad I took the holiday off before returning. It's quite simple, really. A year and a half ago I was trying to protect both you and Misplaced Pages from negative press. You didn't take the advice and a lot of bad press really happened. Now you're repeating most of the same mistakes that created that problem in the first place. It certainly won't be my doing if this makes news again. I hope you take the advice on board and reform. If you don't, I hope this board saves you from yourselves.

It's more than a little bit comical: there are better solutions to the meritorious part of your concerns, but you reject feedback and fail to adjust. It's as if you treat all dispute resolution with extreme myopia, regard anyone whose response amounts to 'no' as an opponent, and try to win as many short-term interactions as possible regardless of the ultimate consequences. ArbCom didn't accept your 'proxy' rationale but in the larger picture that's irrelevant: neither the press nor the public accepted it. You say you're worried about hostile critics as you set yourselves up again for the very same fall.

Best wishes; by cautioning you again my conscience is clear. Durova 22:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

• Support. The topic ban proposal as suggested by Roux (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Cirt, as an anti-Scientologist with a long history of highly POV edits under your current and previous accounts, don't you think that you would be doing yourself as an admin and the project a service by recusing yourself here instead of leading the charge? (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Cirt for material relevant to my point)--Justallofthem (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Assuming it is an indef, and applies to the other similar accounts. This is basically the standard response when evidence of an unresolvable COI exists. --GoodDamon 16:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - this has already been addressed at a higher forum than this one. If GoodDamon does not like the arbitrators' work then he needs to take that up with them, not here. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As ye wish, so shall ye receive. I've moved this here, per Durova's statement on the matter. --GoodDamon 19:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose – I don't see any evidence of incivility on the talk page and in principle support this user's right to edit Scientology topics, just as Jewish Wikipedians are entitled to edit the article on Israel, muslims are entitled to edit the article on 9/11, etc. However, I would support a warning that the user should refrain from edit wars and seek consensus through the talk page. Jayen466 17:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand, I fully agree with you in principle. Denying Christians the right to edit at articles like Christianity would be absurd. But those aren't good analogies. A better analogy would be if computers owned by the Vatican were used solely to produce edits favorable to Catholicism in Misplaced Pages. That would be inappropriate. --GoodDamon 19:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

But her edits feel like the actions of an individual to me. I would have no problem with someone in the Vatican administration making an occasional Misplaced Pages edit from their desk in Rome. The Wikiscanner evidence that Cirt posted on Talk:Scientology showed 122 edits from that IP, made across 15 wiki projects during the period 2004–2007. Even if all of those were attributable to Shutterbug (talk · contribs), that is less than one edit per week, and on the face of it, a storm in a teacup. Jayen466 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see the ArbCom ruling. Those were by no means the only edits from that IP address that Shutterbug performed. They were simply the ones he/she performed while logged out. And you'll note that the logged out edits almost all pertain to Scientology. --GoodDamon 20:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding the logged-in edits, Shutterbug has made around 1750 edits to various Scientology-related articles over a period of about 2 years then, the vast majority of them prior to the September 2007 arbcom. That's really not frenetic activity since the arbcom, comparatively speaking. These are the remedies from the arbcom case. Apart from edit-warring, which you were guilty of as well, which one has Shutterbug violated? Jayen466 22:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - I personaly have no problem with Scientologists I however am upset with Shutterbug's Deletion of my material under Celebrity Centre, The suggestion that my material was "not Notable" as in Shutterbug's words is absurd (on the google search of Scientology it came up on top). I also dislike him of her deleting things regaurding Scientology's Xenu story which is backed up by many sources including the freezone. I doubt this ban will keep the Proxyer of Shutterbug from editing however I suggest Shutterbug edit his or her other interests, I harbour no ill will to Scientologists but I will not stand Idle as the "truth" is rewritten. --Zaharous (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to the talk page because at the time it was a news item still in progress (it still is and clearly not covered by WP:NOT. You are taking revenge here - thanks for being open about it - while Cirt is reverting edits solely on the grounds of "COI" (which is not even a Misplaced Pages policy), not on the grounds of content. Interesting. Shutterbug (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, WP:COI is a behavioral guideline. --GoodDamon 23:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As opposed to Misplaced Pages policy WP:LOP. Shutterbug (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not call it revenge you have just done some deleting on Scientology topics in general, You are probably a good person I just don't like your deletions I just like a whole Misplaced Pages not a half one. Although your edits are in good nature, I think. --Zaharous (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad you came here not to act in revenge for an edit dispute. So you think my edits are in good faith but you support to kick me out of Misplaced Pages? I don't get it, please explain. Shutterbug (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record: No one has proposed you "kick out of Misplaced Pages." What has been proposed is a topic ban for editors who appear to edit on behalf of the Church of Scientology. If that equates to being kicked out of Misplaced Pages for you, then that is frankly rather indicative of the problem. --GoodDamon 15:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'll support a topic ban. This person's editing shows a clear and persistent failure to strive for neutrality. It is quite obviously focused on systematically minimizing information embarrassing to their organisation. This, the tendentiousness, and not any incivility or edit-warring, is the primary act of disruption here. Tendentiousness is always the root cause of these kinds of problems; incivility and edit-warring are only the symptoms. The causes are what needs to be sanctioned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - The fact that the Scientology page is lock from editing until disputes have been resolved demostrates that there are serious discrepancies. During this month large chunks of data have been deleted from the page. Something that is alarming to some editors like myself. The issue of edit-warring is being addressed right now on the page. It takes two to have a fight or edit-warring, I don't see the other party being questioned here when those edits are equaly or far more alarming. Being Scientology a crontroversial issue some edit-warring is expected. I don't see Shutterbug edits being done in bad faith, is just another point of view. Removing this point of view will reflect negatively on the page. Bravehartbear (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, Bravehartbear, but this report really isn't about the edit war. I saw evidence that I personally was never a witness to before that indicated Shutterbug and several other accounts are editing on behalf of the Church of Scientology. This is unethical, antithetical to Misplaced Pages's own policies and guidelines, and completely inappropriate. WP:ROLE accounts are not allowed. No editor in good standing should be expected to edit in such an environment. Imagine for a moment that computers belonging to the Vatican were allowed to continuously edit on behalf of Catholicism, and remove all unflattering material from the encyclopedia about that particular belief system; no editors would stand for that.

On the matter of the edit war, I believe it started largely from misunderstandings. The article needs to formally become a summary style article, because the topic of Scientology is simply too big to fit in one article. The natural first choice for trimming in preparation for doing that is the removal of WP:PRIMARY sources, which if you'll consult the editing history, were exactly what was being removed. Eventually, I'm sure good secondary sources for a lot of that content could go into the beliefs and practices article, but there are simply too many sub-topics to make the beliefs and practices of the belief system more than one subsection of the main article. You've got organizational history, controversies, hidden doctrines, notable members, and so on. There isn't room to do any one of them complete justice on the main article, so each should be summarized. This was an ongoing process when Shutterbug and Su-Jada returned to the article. --GoodDamon 00:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, this is not about WP:ROLE and never has been. Please do not exaggerate the situation so as to worsen it. Again, all you are saying is that you have become aware of the facts and issues of the arbitration and do not agree with the findings and recommendations. Justallofthem (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No what I think GoodDamon is trying to say is that a single purpose account is a great insult to neutrality and sadly I have seen only about ten edits from Shutterbug that are not related to Scientology, Single Purpose accounts greatly compromise the neutrality of an article. --Zaharous (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. There's nothing inherently wrong with a single-purpose account as long as it can keep its biases in check. On some articles, such as those involving esoteric sciences, most of the accounts editing there are technically single-purpose accounts, in that they're editing in a narrow range of articles that reflect their interests. The problems arise when you combine SPAs with bias, and evidence that they're editing on behalf of a particular entity or organization.

Now in answer to Justanother... This really is about WP:ROLE. The proxy argument, which seemed to have some traction in the ArbCom, and was likely at least partially responsible for those findings and recommendations, has fallen apart -- no, don't try to defend it again, it doesn't even pass the sniff test anymore. So what we're left with is pretty straightforward: A series of accounts editing from the Church of Scientology's network on behalf of the Church of Scientology. It's so cut and dry it astonishes me that there's even any further argument on this. It's against Misplaced Pages's policies, and it's just plain unethical. --GoodDamon 05:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The current state of the proxy account debate is this. It seems to me the assertions about why the IP could not be an address used by a greater number of people were simply based on fantasy and wishful thinking – I am not convinced by what I have read so far. And where do you see a "series of accounts editing from the Church of Scientology's network on behalf of the Church of Scientology"? Which accounts are these? Have any of them edited recently? Shutterbug was advised in the arbcom not to recruit RL friends to help her edit the WP article in line with her POV. Where is the evidence that there has been a recurrence of such behaviour now? And while we are talking about SPAs, I am hard-pushed to find any edit by AndroidCat (talk · contribs), for example, that does not relate to Scientology. Yet I do not see anyone raising that as a problem. To be clear, while my opinions may be different from AndroidCat's, I have no problem with his contributions: but there is a double standard at work here if Shutterbug gets clobbered for being an SPA, and SPA on the opposite side of the debate do not receive any such criticism. Jayen466 10:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In this regard, note that off-site canvassing seems to be a known and ongoing problem on the Scientology opponents' side. Jayen466 11:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I just don't buy that argument. You have demonstrated that it's theoretically possible for the Church of Scientology's proxy used in hundreds of hotels to resemble AOL's old proxy system, and for seemingly thousands of users to have restricted their Misplaced Pages edits through that proxy to nearly 100% pro-Scientology behavior. There is no evidence for this, but it has the distinct advantage of being difficult to outright disprove. But the same logic could be applied to any sockpuppet discovered by checkuser; "Hey, we can't block Spammer663 as a sockpuppet of Spammer662 because he might be using a poorly designed proxy similar to the way AOL used to connect users to the Internet!" Sorry, no. --GoodDamon 19:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

But where is the alleged "series of accounts" editing these articles, now, after the arbcom decision? Jayen466 00:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Shutterbug, who used to be COFS, is currently editing. Do you accept at this point that the proxy argument is almost certainly proven to be untrue now? If so, then any account that edited from the known Church of Scientology IP addresses -- and edited strictly in favor of Scientology, instead of in other areas of interest such as photography -- is or was doing so from Church of Scientology property, and thus almost certainly was doing so on behalf of the Church. That is improper behavior. Accounts that exist solely to cast a favorable light on Scientology on behalf of the belief system's largest organized membership are not permitted, per WP:ROLE, any more than accounts run by paid Microsoft employees would be permissible in that article. And please bear in mind that even so, I am not proposing a ban from Misplaced Pages. I am proposing, very specifically, a topic ban. --GoodDamon 02:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Shutterbug is not a "series of accounts", and no one appears to be asserting that s/he has violated remedies 2 and 4 related to the inappropriate behaviour that arbcom found occurred at the time. All the Checkuser evidence posted by Spidern below was available to arbcom then. They came to their findings and remedies. I agree that Shutterbug should not have engaged in an edit-war (remedy 7), but as far as I am concerned, that is all s/he has to answer for. Jayen466 17:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Let the records show that it was found that there was indeed overlapping ip address usage belonging to a specific group of editors appearing to have a conflict of interest, who acted towards pushing a particular pov. Since those findings were announced, the pov-pushing (, , , , , , , , , ), assumption of bad faith, (, , ), and removal of reliable sources (, , ) has continued. ←Spidern→ 07:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

1. The 1st of your examples is POV pushing, fine.
2. The 2nd edit I might have agreed with.
3. The third is POV, but debatable.
4. The fourth I would have agreed with: I would consider it POV pushing to include the information concerned in such a short lede. (Note that the information was moved to the main part of the article, not deleted.)
5. The fifth edit seems to have been a change in the order of paragraphs. How is it POV-pushing?
6. The sixth edit is sourced. It leans towards POV pushing, but is also a reaction to the other side's insistence on including this specific material in the lede.
7. The seventh edit kind of makes sense, given that this is the article on Scientology, i.e. a religion or ideology, and not an organizaton.
8. The eigth edit, while not ideal, tries to correct an existing imbalance. (Many courts and governments have taken a different view than the one described.)
9. The ninth edit, again, while not ideal, tries to correct an existing imbalance.
10. The tenth edit claims portfolio.com is a blog. While it looks like one, it isn't: Condé Nast Portfolio. The edit was inappropriate.

As for the assumption of good or bad faith, I think both sides could profitably make efforts in this respect. I have also looked at your examples where you say reliably sourced information was removed:

1. Concerning the first example of "removal of reliable sources", first off, part of the material was unsourced. As for the part that was sourced, I am reminded of your comment the other day at RS/N: "Does the US army specialize in studying NRMs? Quoted directly from WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." This was concerning a publication by the U.S. Army Chaplain's Office, which I believe would be far better qualified to pronounce on theological issues than a couple of LA Times staff writers. Yet while you want to disallow the US Army Manual, here you argue that the LA Times is a reliable source for theological questions and should not have been removed. Scholarly sources discussing space opera are available, I posted one of them on the talk page the other day. Not one of them is used at the moment, none ever has been used in the article as far as I know.
2. As for your second example, I agree with the edit, or at least I agree that there was and is a situation that needs addressing. I made a related proposal on the talk page the other day.
3. Your third example represents a clear improvement of the article. It does not remove any reliably sourced information at all, it simply brings things into their appropriate chronological sequence.

I wish editors would learn to work with each other in these articles, and concentrate on finding and reflecting the best and most reliable sources. Scholarly sources are woefully underrepresented, with the most hostile scholar, Kent, vastly overrepresented in comparison to his real-life standing. The article has languished at C-class for ages. It is not our task to reflect the coverage of Scientology as given in Operation Clambake, we are supposed to reflect the most high-quality sources out there. So far, there has been too little effort invested in that direction. And I doubt that getting rid of Scientologist editors will make things better. Jayen466 18:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this was never about "getting rid of Scientologist editors". There is demonstrated evidence that the parties listed above cooperated in some fashion in order to push a certain POV, which is favorable of their organization. I will argue that moving content around on the page is indeed quite indicative of a POV, if the information moved could be interpreted to be detrimental to the public image of the organization (i.e. well-sourced, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT). I have absolutely no quarrel with a Scientologist (or anyone, for that matter) who makes well-sourced contributions to any page. In fact, before this fiasco erupted we were in discussion of good Scholarly sources to be added to the article (you'll notice that I re-added a source which was lost in the edit war). The problem is that material which was sourced was removed in certain cases.

It's difficult to assume good faith when editors oppose the consensus of a page without prior discussion in order to push a POV. The evidence presented above (overlapping IP usage) is indicative of orchestrated COI, and a great cause for concern. The religious choice of the editors in question have no bearing on the discussion for a topic ban here. This is no different than calling into question edits made by employees of Microsoft making contributions to Windows Vista. ←Spidern→ 20:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Even though some editors have only now discovered the arbcom case, it is old history. Arbcom dealt with it last year, and allowed Shutterbug to continue editing. Remedies are in place and on the whole adhered to. What happened then has little to do with the present situation at the article. I appreciate it is difficult to assume good faith, but try it nonetheless. Criticise Shutterbug for her edits, and not for who s/he is or what s/he is alleged to have done last year. (Btw, I had noted and appreciated that you restored the ref. Thanx.) Jayen466 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Several users have already reviewed the evidence and made good cases for this block. I agree with points made by Fut.Perf., GoodDamon, Cirt, Zaharous, and Durova. There is no problem with single-topic editors, but SPAs that cannot edit with the neutral point of view have caused problems time and again. This is a typical case. If this were a newer user then more guidance might get results but this is a longtime user who's already been through dispute resolution. Even with all of the Scientology and related article off limits there are still 2 million other pages to edit, so this is a mild prohibition. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Inappropriate activity is evident. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong

The Falun Gong articles were put on probation some time ago. At the moment there is what I understand to be violation of BLP policies on the Li Hongzhi page. user:Zahd seeks to add material that he considers "very damaging," "strange, interestingly outlandish", etc., and which he believes makes the subject "look foolish" -- these also appear to be the reasons for advocating inclusion of the disputed material. He has also made disparaging remarks about the subject of the article, though I'm unsure of how severe such remarks need to be before they are relevant. The dispute is about this line from BLP: "Misplaced Pages also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." -- I mentioned to Zahd that the reasons he states for inclusion of the material are not ones supported by wikipedia, and that notability needs to be established for inclusion. He responded in contradiction of this policy, saying "The issue isn't that we must deal exclusively with what concepts make him famous or notable..." -- Zahd has made no response to repeated citations of BLP, and made no attempt to deal with the policy issue of the material. Instead he has merely accused me of censorship, of having an agenda, etc., and reverted repeatedly. I remembered the pages are on probation, so I'm leaving a note here. Full discussion: Talk:Li_Hongzhi#TIME_Asia_quotes. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 23:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that the {{quotefarm}} was pointless, but then so was a really long and totally pointless quote from Li himself that I've just removed. The article does have genuine hagiographic tendencies: these need to be addressed, particularly in the "academic perspectives" section. I'm quite sure this is not the whole story. Bottom line, though - nothing actionable here yet. Moreschi (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've put this on WP:FTN. Moreschi (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Giano II

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Arbitration case:Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC

Relevant remedy: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Civility:Giano (See also )

Ok, stop

Was SlimVirgin's unblock appropriate?

On Community Consensus

more discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think it should be apparent by now that there is not a clear community will on this at all. I'd wager most of the community is sick of our collective shenanigans. This whole Giano episode is destroying the cohesion and credibility of everyone involved, no matter which side they're on. We have got to get our collective act together, not use tools, admin noticeboards, empty rhetoric and Giano to fight a proxy battle over philosophical and political issues. There is nothing more damaging in these melodramas than our inability to discuss with the mutual assumption of good faith, except perhaps the near wheel wars that break out. Everyone should stop claiming that the "community" is on their side, cause I'd bet all my privileges and all the money in my pockets that they just want us to collectively figure it out.--Tznkai (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Those who keep blocking Giano lack of clue. Such blocks never help, and usually lead to massive disruption. We're so sick and tired of this pettiness and personal feuding. Go work on an article. Jehochman2 (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC) If the short blocks don't work, then what is to be done? This arbcom ruling isn't being enforced- quite the opposite. Individual admins just keep being banned from blocking Giano. How many will be stopped from blocking him, so effectively no-one can, and when will it be admitted that numerous people think he's acting wrong, that's why he keeps being blocked, not through individual prejudice? This is why FT2 blocked this time- but even he is now being accused of persecution. Even members of arbcom now can't enforce the rulings. I can only think it would need Jimbo to act, not that he would as it would make him unpopular with some people- we need to wait until consensus comes, but perhaps gradually each person will see the line and think Giano has overstepped it far enough. Sticky Parkin 16:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Any idea what to do about Giano's aggressiveness then, if blocks don't help? I posted a note about it on his talk page now. We will see where it leads. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC) The first thing to do is to tone down our rhetoric. The Giano block problem is not that a block is good, or a block is bad, or whatever, but the weary accusations, counter accusations, and general escalation. Likewise, ignoring the situation only allows it to fester. We can't just "go work on an article" the suspicion and accusations create an incredibly hostile editing environment. If we talk sensibly, do our best to control our well intentioned desires to "tell it how it is" or "call a duck a duck" or "end things once and for all" that would be an excellent first step. If we do that, then Giano and those blocking him should do it as well, and if they don't, they will look properly ridiculous in the face of it.--Tznkai (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Well, if Newyorkbrad is correct and the block wasn't an strictly Arbcom block but a block by an admin who happens to be an Arbcom member, and if that's a useful distinction, then the enforcement should be adjusted that only Arbcom members acting in the name of the full committee be allowed to carry out sanction in this case. That would stop this block/unblock cycle. RxS (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Right, perhaps we can write that into WP:GIANO where we can spell out the special treatment and rights of this exceptional user.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Why can't we be practical about this? Arbcom can shape enforcement however it wants. The current enforcement is clearly not working, why not adjust it? Why let this go on and on just in the name of principle? RxS (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Is this so hard to understand? The problem is not blocking Giano, the problem is blocking Giano stupidly. Bad blocks of Giano happen more often because so many wait for an opportunity to block him. Bad blocks of Giano lead to more drama than those of other users because they will be reversed. Bad blocks of Giano serve no preventative purpose because Giano obviously won't learn anything from a reversed block. If an admin doesn't have sufficient judgement and neutrality to see on their own whether a block of Giano is good or bad, they must not enact it. Blatantly obvious. What they can do instead is try to get a substantial consensus that Giano be blocked. Another issue in this case is that if a block is supposed to have any educational effect, then the official explanation must not contain ridiculous justifications. (Such as: Your obvious Jane Austen joke account behaved in character.) That's another thing that can be corrected by a discussion before the block. My guess is that many of these bad blocks happen because the blocking admins want them so much that they don't want to discuss, lest the resulting consensus deprives them of the satisfaction. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC) What was bad about FT2's block? --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC) The problem is that not everyone agrees that a particular block was bad or stupid...there are people on both sides. There are Arbcom enforcement principles in place, and if they are not working they need to be fixed. RxS (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC) We seem to be living on different planets. FT2's block of Giano was reversed, and there is no chance of a consensus to reinstate it. The only thing it did was produce drama. So it was bad. FT2's block came complete with a stupid justification that has no chance of being taken seriously by Giano. That could have been rectified before the block, but it wasn't. So it was bad for a second, independent reason. Why do admins often block without discussing first? Because it's often easier and reduces drama. Why must they never do it in case of Giano? Because it makes everything more complicated and produces drama. The Arbcom ruling says Giano can be blocked in certain cases. It does not say the blocking admin must do it without first consulting other admins. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC) It also doesn't say they need to discuss first. And once the block is done, there needs to be consensus to reverse it. A non-consensual unblock is worse (and more disruptive) than a block that's perfectly in line with the enforcement process in place. Your use of terms like stupid and drama don't really add to anything here. Again, there is no requirement for discussion in order to carry out an (this) Arbcom enforcement. From there, normal discussion needs to take place when considering reversing the block, something that was not done here. RxS (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC) This is not the place to get into the details, but there are reasons why there will be no consensus to reinstate the block. An admin who is too clueless or too biased to see such things on his own must discuss first. The Arbcom enforcement rules allow blocks to achieve a certain purpose. It follows from general wiki principles that you can't use it to justify blocks that don't have a snowball's chance of achieving that purpose. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC) The problem, Jechochman, is that a portion of useful work at Misplaced Pages actually involves interfacing with the arbitration committee. Two days ago I opened an unban request at AN for an editor named Bus stop--someone who doesn't have an entourage of loyal editors advocating on his behalf. Over a year ago I had been the banning admin on his case. When his user talk got blocked he was referred to the Committee. The other day it came to light that for seven months now, he actually has been making polite appeals exactly as instructed. He hasn't been socking, pledges not to repeat his old problems, and has displayed remarkable patience as each review began with encouraging signs and ultimately disappeared into a black hole. In October Bus stop approached me with a polite apology. I accepted and wrote my support to the Committee, followed up per request with more information, and ultimately that fell into the same black hole. So this week I took Bus stop's appeal directly to the community. Fortunately Bus stop's account got unblocked last night, yet I wonder how many other people like him have been neglected. It's time to do something about that. Large drama fests over a handful of high profile editors might just have something to do with why a series of well meaning people got so utterly distracted that Bus stop kept falling through the cracks. I've outlined a set of other reasons and a set of solutions. Now I want to set up a better ban review system to make sure that sort of thing doesn't happen again. What does that have to do with this AE thread? Well the solution needs attention and time from the Committee and the community in order to get off the ground. Inviting reformers who are serious about ArbCom reform to join that effort. To Giano and supporters: if you truly want a better arbitration committee and a more equitable Misplaced Pages, please reconsider your choices. What you are doing is not helping. Every one of us is wrong sometime. The difference is who recognizes their own mistakes and sets about becoming part of the solution. Durova 17:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Durova, could you explain who is part of the 'entourage'? I don't remember commenting on any previous Giano blocks, nor do I remember speaking to him on or off-wiki. I don't remember Hans Adler being someone who commented on previous blocks either. PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC) I certainly doubt that the way forward in this is to lecture one side in their wrong-doing. That frankly isn't any more of a clever move forward than these blocks. And what exactly are Giano and his supporters doing other than responding to pointless impotent drama-inducing blocks from on high?Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC) In which case, should we close this discussion? PhilKnight (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC) FT2's block of Giano II (talk · contribs) was appropriate, per the ArbCom civility restriction on Giano which says, "Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked". This diff alone, among several others, is a blatant violation. A 55-hour block was therefore reasonable (and indeed a bit lenient, considering the previous block history for that user). The unblock by admin SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) was inappropriate, and a violation of administrator policy. I saw no attempt by SlimVirgin to contact the blocking admin, FT2 (talk · contribs), nor do I see a clear case from her that the blocking admin's judgement was faulty. Instead she just said that the blocks of Giano under the IRC ArbCom case "have to stop". But this is SlimVirgin placing her judgment above that of the Arbitration Committee, and I do not support this action. If she believes that the ArbCom restriction is faulty, then she should address it via appropriate dispute resolution and consensus, and not by overturning blocks by admins who are trying to enforce it. --Elonka 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC) 'FT2's block of Giano II (talk · contribs) was appropriate' - I don't think so. 'This diff alone, among several others, is a blatant violation.' - nope - certainly not in context. 'nor do I see a clear case from her that the blocking admin's judgement was faulty' - fair cop in some ways, but there had been pretty extensive community discussion on this which would seem to support Slim's position that blocking was a bad idea. 'SlimVirgin placing her judgment above that of the Arbitration Committee' - that's just plain wrong (as in you're incorrect, Elonka). Sorry! Does WP:IAR help you understand why this was a good thing at all, E? Privatemusings (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC) SlimVirgin was wrong to do a speedy unblock without even an attempt at discussion with the blocking admin. I denounce that action and hope the committee will prevent that happening again. As I have stated publicly, I oppose all blocks for minor incivility--whether applied to Giano or anybody else. With Giano, the cost of such blocks is highest of all. When incivility rises to the level of egregious personal attacks or harassment, that's when a block should be applied. User:Catherine de Burgh was being saucy, but she was not harassing anyone. The block on Giano appears to have been motivated by politics. I denounce that action also. Durova hits the nail on the head. Why is ArbCom wasting its time spoiling jokes by a humor sock instead of dealing with important matters? Many of our articles are being diddled by tendentious, single-purpose, advocacy accounts. This is an encyclopedia, not a social club. It's about the articles. Jehochman 20:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC) You're right: this is an encyclopedia, not a social club. That's why so-called joke accounts are out of place. Especially joke accounts that make inappropriate edits and disrupt the project. However, this block of Giano was not due to the sock, it was due to Giano's unremitting incivility and bad faith. While we don't commonly block for minor incivility, Giano has engaged in major incivility so many times that he's on civility probation. That probation calls for any single administrator to block him for violations. It does not require a consensus. As it happens, nine different admins have blocked Giano since the February IRC ruling. That shows that the belief he is violating his probation isn't limited to just a single admin. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC) (outdent)If these discussions are limited to Administrators? then please remove this post. Excuse my naivety, folks. But, why is there always 'high drama' when Giano is blocked? Why can't Administrators make up their minds about this editor? Either block him or don't. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Reconsideration of block and unblock

After negotiation with SlimVirgin she has agreed to not reverse any block that I might make. I will over the next few days carefully evaluate the edits cited by FT2 and possibly others made by Giano and determine whether a block is justified under the civility parole in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC. Discussion of this matter should be directed here. Fred Talk 21:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits at issue

• You called user:Will Beback a "troll",

:::You are nothing but a troll. I know this and so does everyone reading the tripe you are trolling here. Go away, and I will say no more about you. Shoo..... Giano (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Just you watch me! I have no idea who you are, but to me you are little more than a troll! - and we all know how to deal with such as those. Giano (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Implied to a female user that she should be "ashamed of her sex" and told her "men don't like a woman with an opinion" , (On Talk:Anti-Flirt Club).

  ==Query==

::What a silly question, are you ashamed of your sex? Well I am ashamed of you, for thinking such a thing. What a charmig study Mr Hochman has just uploaded of Miss Reighly, it reminds me of myself, just after my cosmetic dental surgery. - As for you Ms Elonka, I would change that attitude if I were you, men don't like a woman with an opinion you don't want to stay on the shelf for ever do you? Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The article Anti-Flirt Club, which some suspect of being a spoof, had been created to this point by Catherine de Burgh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Giano's alter ego. Looking at Talk:Anti-Flirt Club it is obvious that there were several attempts at humor by Catherine de Burgh.

• You blanked your talkpage and tried to get back to high quality content work, but shortly after, you were back to incivility, writing "Just in case any of you were stupid enough..."

  ==Interesting diffs==

With this comment:

(Just in case any of you were stupid enough to think that the Ombudsmen was there to protect your privacy, he's not he's just anither IRC Admin)

• Posted uncivil comments related to your "upset of the day"

  ::You should not have the power to even think about it, and I won't rest until you have no powers to abuse at all. You should never have the opportunity to do this to anyone else again. You are a disgrace as an Admin and a disgrace a checkuser. Giano (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

::No you didn't, you did nothing at all, just created a situation where Gerard will do it again. With luck, next time, the victim will be weaker than me and no-one will notice. So you can keep him blocked and all go off for a congratulatory backslapping drink with Gerard. You must all be very proud of yourselves. Giano (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

.

• Your other account had similar posts, couched in "Olde English" as may be .
• You were told to drop it in that post, and then formally told on your main talk page that this wasn't acceptable by two administrators -- Elonka, and GeorgeWilliamHerbert . Your response was broadly to blank and/or ignore those warnings.

• ::I have never read such stupid claptrap in all my life, you must be the most uninformed Arb in history, and that is saying something - "I also now have evidence (that I didn't have before, due to people the many people making a fuss" Fozzie told you that in his statement, or do the Arbs nt bother to read them - don't bother replying we can work the answer out for ourselves! People making a fuss, if people were not making a fuss you lot would have swept it under the carpet. Giano (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• :::"As I understand it, David Gerard was unaware of who owned it too, and he has stated as such." Thank you Deskana for showing your complete ignorance of this case - probably best if you don't tire yoursekd further lookingat it. Giano (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• ::You should not have the power to even think about it, and I won't rest until you have no powers to abuse at all. You should never have the opportunity to do this to anyone else again. You are a disgrace as an Admin and a disgrace a checkuser. Giano (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• ::You should not have the power to even think about it, and I won't rest until you have no powers to abuse at all. Giano (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• ::No you didn't, you did nothing at all, just created a situation where Gerard will do it again. With luck, next time, the victim will be weaker than me and no-one will notice. So you can keep him blocked and all go off for a congratulatory backslapping drink with Gerard. You must all be very proud of yourselves. Giano (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• :*::Thank you Fozzie. If I don't yell the Arbcom puts this under its already filthy carpet. There can be no closure at all on this while Gerard is still allowed to violate editor privacy by abusing his checkuser rights. I am not alone in thinking this, but I do feel alone in vocally wanting this problem properly sorted. The Arbcom have wanted the matter silenced and swept under the carpet from the first moment they knew. What their motives were for this, one can only speculate; what the hold is that Gerard exerts over Jimbo and the Arbcom one can only speculate too. The ARbcom has done nothing to solve this problem. One or two of them send me "soothing" emails saying they understand, but in public they have the balls to do nothing. It has been suggested to me that I should run for Arbcom, having first announced that while it would be impossible to be accepted and appointed by Jimbo, a vote for me is a vote for those to register their disappointment at the way the project is currently being run. If one ran a business like this, one would be bankrupt. To me at the moment Misplaced Pages seems morally bankrupt. Perhaps I should run, I don't know. If I don't run - I hope those that agree with me will vote instead for those unafraid to say what changes they will try to implement for the better. A vote for the likes of Matthews and Forrester is to maintain the status quo. Forrester, is even now denying he owns IRC (Remember: "I...er..own the channel" said so smugly) , but refusing to deny that he would accept an appointment against the majority vote. Are we a buch of automatons or fools to put up with this? Such a situation cannot be allowed to continue. We do the work - we have a right to a say and to be treated fairly and properly. Giano (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• ::The reason I am blocked is because they knew I was about to put my name forward and run against them for Arbcom. Simple as that. Happy editing to you all. Giano (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Analysis

Civility: Giano

2.2) Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

    passed 7-3 at 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Log of blocks and bans.

    passed 7-0 at 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

He was patiently asked twice to conduct himself in a more civil manner:

:::Nobody has asked you to be silent. What we asked you to do is to pursue this discussion within the confines of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF.

What keeps getting you in trouble is that you perceive affronts and problems to be excuses to violate those policies.

As a point of fact, those policies are never more important than within the middle of a crisis, because they allow everyone to openly and honestly discuss and discover what has happened, what the implications are, and come to a community consensus in which everyone understands what the issues are.

When you respond by counterattacking, you form a different level of discussion, one that necessarily polarizes and acts to destroy the community.

This is a vicious circle. If this were one administrator who kept ganging up on you, it could be fixed from either side - either you realizing what you're doing that perpetuates it, or the admin realizing or being sanctioned. But it's not just one administrator. You've been blocked more than anyone else who is still considered a valuable contributor, almost never by the same admin twice.

There is nothing that the community can do to avoid your confrontationalism being seen to be a policy violation by the next admin whose luck will come up a month or two or three down the line. There are two things that can change the cycle - one, you realize what you're doing that provokes and expands these incidents and you work to change that, or two, the community finally concludes that your good contributions are not outweighed by the drama, and a community ban forms and sticks.

The sort of polarization and divisiveness that a community ban would show indicate are a symptom of the failure of the community consensus on your case.

Lots of people, including myself, value what you bring to the project when you're focused on articles and conducting yourself in a civil and constructive manner in policy space. What you do in the bad times demeans all the good that you do. Your behavior is driving a stake into the heart of the community, one small incident at a time.

Changing that does not mean not speaking out on issues you care about, it doesn't mean not advocating for policy changes or community changes you feel are important. It means making those statements in a constructive manner, respecting other people's opinions, assuming their good faith even when you're butting heads with them. When you do that, people respect you, and listen to you better, and you are a more effective advocate for the ideas you hold.

Please - look at what you're doing. See how what you're doing is part of the cycle that's causing these problems. Change what you're doing. The alternative is disaster, particularly for you and undoubtedly the community as a whole. Don't go there. All it takes is treating people you are in disputes with in a civil and respectful manner even if you feel very strongly that they're wrong.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"(civility doesn't mean not saying what you think, it means saying it and respecting those who don't or don't yet agree with you. the opposite is corrosive to the community.)"

==Re-focusing== Giano, I'm not usually involved in the maelstrom that surrounds you (for example, I didn't know that you were Catherine de Burgh (talk · contribs) until I actually saw the block message), but even I am noticing this particular incident. I am also getting increasingly uncomfortable with the namecalling. For example, Will Beback may be many things, but I don't believe that "troll" is one of them. So could you please try to ratchet things back a notch? Also, as I look at your contribs, Giano II (talk · contribs), though you're clearly spending a lot of time on Misplaced Pages, it appears to have been days since the last time you worked on an actual article. So do you think it would be possible to try and re-focus your efforts on the main purpose of the project here? Or, aside from having Gerard's head delivered to you via Fedex (I can envision all the little biohazard symbols already), what exactly do you think is needed to de-escalate things? --Elonka 02:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano has been blocked 7 times to date for violations of his civility parole, see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC#Log_of_blocks_and_bans and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AGiano_II When the enforcement ruling is applied to the number of recent violations of his civility parole Giano is potentially subject to a number of one month blocks. However, a block of one month is imposed beginning after the conclusion of the arbitration committee elections which he has expressed interest in. if he runs, otherwise commencing at the end of nominations. If he runs for arbitrator the block will commence on the date of the appointment of new arbitrators (the bulk of them) and will be commuted if Jimmy Wales appoints Giano II arbitrator. Fred Talk 17:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments on proposed reblock

• Endorse (re)block. This is a reasonable enforcement of ArbCom civility restrictions, on a user who appears to have ignored all other cautions. Sometimes the rules must be enforced with coercion. --Elonka 18:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • (addendum) After reviewing the other comments here, where some good points have been made, I find myself agreeing that a new one-month block seems excessive. An ArbCom enforcement block is still appropriate, but it might be better to simply reinstate the original 55-hour block, rather than extending the duration. However, this could potentially be further lessened if Giano II were to be willing to make a statement acknowledging the community's concerns. And if Giano were willing to give his word that he would abide by WP:CIVIL from this point forward, it might even be reasonable to consider waiving the block entirely. I have posted this suggestion on Giano II's talkpage. --Elonka 01:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• Let me get this straight. An user who has not edited since his original block of 55 hours is having his block lengthened to one month because an admin undid the block. Instead of addressing the admin poor use of tools, you are making a lengthy block on the user. That makes no sense to me at all. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Hmm, that would be blocks that lasted 38 minutes, 10 minutes, 111 minutes, 46 minutes, 3 hours... I don't think anyone's really defending SV's unblock, but I have to say I'm really sorry to have missed Christmas, because it's clearly April 1st. Talk about missing the point and making WP a laughing stock. Again. Black Kite 19:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Fred, you're kerb-crawling in crazytown if 1. This can be described as 'analysis'. 2. You can portray yourself as an uninvolved, unbiased user. 3. You think anyone's going to believe this is nothing other than some kind of misplaced vengeance - silly hyperbole bordering on trolling, presumably orchestrated to take the heat of Gerrard and onto Giano (again) and this weeks scapegoat SV. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• SlimVirgin did wrong, so let's punish Giano II. Brilliant! Jehochman 19:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• This is one of the most laughably absurd proposals I've seen in awhile--and that's saying something. This is simplyu ludicrous on its face, and should be tossed into the dustbin of wrongheaded, anti-Giano nonsense where it belongs. Giano has his problems and issues. This solves none of it, and would only serve to further escalate drama and tension. You know, this mess is making think that perhaps little ol' me should run for Arbcom, sans sysop, on a platform of "I'll only get involved when absolutely necessary." Why, why, WHY do we propose these type of things? _D.D.J.Jameson 19:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Naw, it's not even Fred's most laughably absurd proposal... doesn't anybody here remember his infamous "Clown Redirect Proposal" back in the Attack Sites ArbCom case last year? *Dan T.* (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• I won't use the language other people have used (there seems to be a contest on for whose comments can be the most virulent and condemnatory), I don't think a reblock for 1 month (however appropriate or not it might have been initially) is sensible given the circumstances. Avruch 19:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  I don't consider calling a laughably absurd proposal "laughably absurd" in any way "virulent." I attacked the proposal, not Fred._D.D.J.Jameson 19:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  I wasn't referring to your comment specifically (as I didn't use your name, or indent beneath your comment). On the other hand, this is not the only forum where you have been making your very strong opinions known. Avruch 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  I have very strong opinions on this, but I've remained completely civil/polite at all points when dealing with the issue. Strong opinions (and the expression of them) aren't the problem here, in my view. _D.D.J.Jameson 19:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Every time somebody does anything against Giano, several people will jump at that person very quickly and with very little actual arguments. Please, read the analysis and make comments relevant to it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  Claiming I (and others) haven't read the "analysis" is an astounding assumption of bad faith. Please stop. _D.D.J.Jameson 19:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Not assuming bad faith. I think you and others have entirely noble though misguided reasons to support Giano no matter the circumstances. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  I have dealt with Giano on several occasions, and have looked into the "history" of the dispute. Your calling me "misguided" has more than a hint of irony. _D.D.J.Jameson 20:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I found FT2's original block not entirely unreasonable, but this proposal of Fred's is so far outside policy and reason I'm seriously considering blocking Fred for disruption, merely for proposing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Can you elaborate your understanding of policy? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Exactly how would that be less disruptive?--Tznkai (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by FT2

I won't wheel war and overturn another administrator's decision, especially in this kind of complex forum. Nor do I think it's needed. I ask Fred to strongly reconsider, and explain why.

What Fred is proposing is roughly the following logic:

Click "Show" to view (short)

Giano was blocked several times under the civility ruling in circumstances where an administrator had reasonably (in his view) concluded the Arbcom restriction was violated. A review (which I'm not examining in depth) has led Fred to hold the view that 7 of those times were valid, and therefore a number were unblocked where in fact a reasonable judgement had been made to block. In his view, these were blocks which would not have been undone given good review with a legitimate aim of deterring disruption by enforcing the restriction. He concluded that absent improper reviews, Giano would have been blocked between 1 and several months more and may have been deterred. He has therefore decided upon a block to enact the impact of the blocks administrators had legitimately decided, less the effect of the improper unblocks. His likely view is this is either 1/ the missing time reinstated, or 2/ present deterrence whose dureation is assessed by counting the past "missing" blocks.

That's as best I understand it, a good faith explanation of the proposal.

The problem is that we don't go back through history looking for missed blocks or blocks-that-should-have-been and counting up time "lost". We just don't. As a norm, we broadly let stale matters drop, a lot of the time, which is wise because we can always act on any current repetition or need for deterrence. When I blocked Giano it was only in respect of current disruption that needed preventing then, to obtain prevention of continuation, and to deliver strong encouragement to think twice about repetition (deterrence). It was based on multiple events in the prior 48 hours (only), continuing right up to the then-present. That's utterly standard grounds for blocking to protect/deter. We might look back at old matters and decide the problem hasn't gone away (SV), but we wouldn't block for them, in and of themselves.

Fred, we agree this conduct of Giano's is totally inappropriate. But I can't agree this block. It doesn't match any norm I'm used to here, nor basic wiki philosophy, nor does it seem a situation requiring IAR as a drastic draconian act to curtail the habitual conduct problem.

Rather than further escalation, would you consider reducing it to 55 hours (ie the original block) less time served. It just can't be left as you suggest. I would not object if others see fit, to replacing the reduction instead by

1. a strong communal (or personal) warning to Giano about future incidents and handling, and
2. a strong communal (or personal) endorsement that any future blatantly unreasonable unblocks at AE or other admin disruption of Arbitration Enforcement norms (not just Giano, but all matters equally where this kind of thing has gone on) might be forwarded direct to the Arbitration Committee by any administrator, if they are undermining the intended protection/deterrence of an Aritration sanction.

I hope that will be a better remedy all around, that will better meet the issue.

FT2  00:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

further comment by LessHeard vanU

I very much concur with FT2, in that the length of the sanction is inappropriately arrived at, but I have another concern with it - it will not stick. ArbCom enforcement is no different than any other sanction involving suspension of editing privileges except the circumstances that generate it; it is as open to amendment and variation as is any other admins block. Should a month block be entered there will very likely be a debate on a (or both) admins board in short order and it is almost certain that an unblock will be performed as soon as there is a consensus (and likely before there is a consensus that there is a consensus) that Giano has served sufficient time. With FT2's input, the basis of arguing the sanction length is excessive is much advanced. For a block to stick it needs to be under circumstances that the majority of uninvolved parties accept as being appropriate and for a length commiserate with whichever violation Giano has committed - and it needs to be executed by someone without a known history of dispute with Giano.
I am on record as saying that FT2's block was not excessive, and I would state here that I think Giano is capable of expressing himself in terms that are not nearly as provocative (as regards drama) as he has and that in view of the civility parole he properly blocked. I would further state here that I would be willing to enact the remainder of that block, in that I have no history of dispute with Giano (quite the opposite, I think he is on the side of truth and transparency), and am sanguine over whatever opinion Giano may have regarding my efforts and abilities as an admin, editor or person, or if they should change in the light of this post. I would also ask if other sysops, broadly regarded as being neutral or pro-Giano, would also declare themselves as being supportive of enacting properly reasoned and appropiately lengthed blocks. This would, I trust, sufficiently diminish the drama surrounding any sanction of Giano in that parties who have perceived to have a history of disagreement with him would be excluded from performing the blocks, and that those doing so will be acting in accordance with policy and consensus only. It is the only way I can see of trying to square the circle that is how Giano should be dealt with under policy. I invite further comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Given all the facts of the situation, I do not think that any block of Giano was appropriate so no block should be re-instated. When discussed internally, most of the arbitrators commenting (not all commented) internally said that a civility block was unwise. Usually the Committee's views reflect the broad thinking of the Community (acknowledge that is is not always obvious since we do not always make our thoughts known in public). So if some of us do not think that a block was warranted, then it was bound to be controversial in the Community. In general admins should not use their tools in a controversial way. A 55 hour block that will cause more than 55 hours of drama makes no sense at all. The precipitating event for the block was a back and forth discussion between an arb and Giano on Giano's talk page where both made uncivil comments. Instead of blocking one of them, someone needed to de-escalate the situation. I can understand why the block fueled Giano's view that the Committee is out to get him. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"A 55 hour block that will cause more than 55 hours of drama makes no sense at all." In this case, maybe so. Stepping back a bit it looks like seeking short term utility over simple fairness is what got us to this point, one arbitration at a time. What's fair in this case? At this point I'm not sure. But yet more short-term thinking will leave the project worse off in six months, just like it has in the past. Tom Harrison 15:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ArbComs attempts to kill the immediate drama rather than establishing workable principles is the reason why this happens over and over. Compared to years or conflict, one week of drama is insignificant. This is kind of like trying to keep the peace at home by giving a candy every time a child is screaming. With child, I am not only referring to Giano here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I will once again propose Jehochman's rule: "Do not block for incivility unless it rises to the level of egregious personal attacks, harassment or disruption. Lesser incivility can be dealt with by social pressure, or by ignoring those who misbehave to get attention." If people would follow this rule, there would be many fewer problems. Jehochman 16:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano's attacks on Gerard could count as harassment. You do have a point, and the community's failure to apply social pressure and support those who become Giano's targets is likely the main problem here. People with special powers in Misplaced Pages should be watched and criticised when there is a reason to, but letting completely unfounded bullying go on will not give us better or more fair officials. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Given Giano and the Community's general concern about the Committee's lack of timely follow up about issues, I think that some agitating type comments by Giano are not unwarranted. Some people not understanding the full dynamics of the situation may see it as being bullying. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference between criticising ArbCom for being slow (everyone does that) and comments like "You are the worst Arbitrator/Checkuser/Administrator ever! Your block/comment/opinion is horrible! I will fight until I get your head on a platter." Even if true, such comments don't provide any actual information and certainly don't help the community. I am afraid that some people support Giano because his harassment drives their wiki-political enemies away from the project. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'd be interested in seeing your evidence regarding the number of people Giano has driven away from the project. Else perhaps a retraction of that inflammatory claim. _D.D.J.Jameson 17:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• It would be quite impossible to prove if someone was driven away by Giano or just got tired on Misplaced Pages in general. Also, I said drives away, not have driven away. I would think it is quite obvious that harassment makes people more likely to leave Misplaced Pages. What I mean is: I see many people saying that they like Giano because he says important things about ArbCom, admins and others. Yet I don't see any impartial constructive criticism from him. I see him harassing valuable community members and biting random newbies who happened to be wrong (in his opinion) about something trivial. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Very funny, Apoc2400: "the community's failure to apply social pressure". By now every admin knows that Giano is not going to change. So why do they block him? Here is the obvious answer:

mobbing is typically found in work environments that have poorly organized production and/or working methods and incapable or inattentive management and that mobbing victims are usually "exceptional individuals who demonstrated intelligence, competence, creativity, integrity, accomplishment and dedication"

In other words, since there has never been a consensus to ban him – not for want of trying, of course – they try to use the fact "that harassment makes people more likely to leave Misplaced Pages". In retrospect, it's clear ArbCom even made it easier with the civility probation. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• With social pressure pressure I meant primarily to support the victims actually. Also, mobbing victims typically don't have an army of people who support them in every situation. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• There are quite a few "exceptional individuals who intelligence, competence, creativity, integrity, accomplishment and dedication" here, and they recognise each others' value. They are not all supporting Giano of course – not everyone can stand a choleric, and not everyone shares his sense of humour. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I hope you didn't mean what you wrote: "Supporting" victims of harassment by "social pressure". Sounds like "supporting" the victims of traffic accidents by attacking the responsible drivers (rather than by calling an ambulance). --Hans Adler (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Giano is perfectly capable of expressing himself calmly when he wants to. By supporting, I mean to protest harassment when you see it. I believe you mean to do just the same when you protest blocks against Giano.

If you (that's plural) think Giano's criticism of Misplaced Pages is good, why don't you express it yourselves? Why do I never see such threads at the Village Pump? Why don't any of you run for ArbCom if the currents arbs are so corrupt? --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• (To Apoc) So because "it would be quite impossible" to actually support your accusation with evidence, perhaps you should retract it and apologize. I've observed Giano now for a short while, and I've never seen him harrass someone off the project. I have noticed that there have been several attempts throughout WikiHistory to forcibly remove him from editing the project, which I'll gladly prove with diffs. I don't make such accusations lightly, and I know that there is plenty of evidence out there of such efforts. Giano has his problems, but hounding normal editors from the project isn't one of them. _D.D.J.Jameson 19:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(resp to FloNight) If it is that there is no consensus to block, then of course I would not do so - and this is why I offer my services; I would only block where there is such a consensus among a majority of parties, I would not do so on the demand of certain interests, and particularly only if I concur that Giano has exceeded the civility parole (if I disagreed then I would be part of the argument against a block). Too much of the drama that surrounds efforts to restrain Giano's language is that most of those who warn Giano and certainly almost all who attempt to sanction him are those with whom Giano has already clashed, or is seen as being too close to those with whom Giano has clashed, or is otherwise perceived to be part of a faction that wishes Giano's opinions to be restrained. I am none of these, but I do see value in Giano using more temperate and considered phrasing in his statements (for one thing, they are then less able to be disregarded in the furore over the choice of words used) and it is possible that a neutral admin administering a sanction that has community consensus may prove salutatory to Giano (he believes, I am sure, that he does what he does for the encyclopedia community - so having his peers say "this time you have gone too far" may give him pause to think and consider).

There has to be an end of the cycle of a certain element of Wikipedias more long established editors/admins acting in a manner with regard to Giano that provokes far more drama than that which they say they are attempting to resolve. My offer may form part of that, because I wouldn't be so stupid as to invite the disregard of an editor I admire and whose aims regarding honesty and transparency I fully support by sticking my hand up and saying, "Yeah, I fancy swinging the banhammer in Giano's direction" if I didn't think it might be a way of advancing the encyclopedia. I like to think that that is something that all three of us, and very many other people here, stand together in wanting (although it is unlikely to be shoulder to shoulder, under the circumstances...) My offer stands. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• No longer authorized by Arbitration Committee The recently passed restriction on further enforcement by the arbitration committee makes it clear that Fred may not impose this proposed block without the prior written consent of the committee. On that basis, this entire thread should be archived. We don't need further discussion of just how ridiculous Fred's proposal is. GRBerry 05:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments prior to reblock

Underlying issue

To my mind, the issue here is that it does not appear to me that there is community consensus for the underlying remedy. No block for Giano under this remedy is ever going to garner community consensus, because a sufficient portion of the community opposes blocking Giano under this remedy period.

There are, essentially, four options for the arbcom here that I see.

1. Punt. That is, do nothing and allow the situation to be resolved by the community.
2. Drop the restriction on Giano.
3. Replace the restriction on Giano with something that is less nuanced in its enforcement.
4. Step in when blocks on Giano that the arbcom views as reasonable and what was intended under the remedy are overturned.

All have advantages and disadvantages. Fort he most part, the arbcom has been sticking to #1 thus far. But, drama aside, that is basically the situation - as it stands, the remedy is not enforced or enforceable.

The more fundamental issue underlying this is the question whether and to what degree the arbcom can impose a remedy that is not supported by the community. There have been instances of jury nullification in the past that worked - I remember a case some years ago when an admin was desysopped by throwing them back to an immediate RFA. The community widely refused to vote on the RFA, declaring it a bad decision, and the arbcom was forced to reconsider.

On the other hand, the reason we have the arbcom is because sometimes community decision making fails to come to an adequate resolution. Thus there is clearly a degree to which the arbcom can overrule the community.

This is not something that a hard and fast principle should be offered on, but it seems to me an important debate to have as opposed to and in addition to the basic debate on Giano and SV's conduct. Regardless of whether one agrees with the civility parole, FT2's block, or SV's unblock in principle, to what extent is the situation contentious enough that the basic remedy needs to be reconsidered? Does the arbcom have legitimate authority here? And if so, what implications does that have for how the remedy ought to be enforced regardless of one's support for it? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing a "sufficient portion of the community" with a small, noisy, self important minority. An overwhelming majority of the community do not give a shit about Giano, or ArbCom, or IRC or the multitude of other political machinations that underpin these power games. Its about time everyone took a step back and asked as simple question: if any one of the rest of the community - that everyone seems so keen to cite as being on their side - was in Giano's position today, what would happen to them; Block or no block? Rockpocket 22:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you on the matter of principle, but regardless - there is sufficient objection that all enforcement is contentious. This requires some thought about the nature of enforcement. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a community consensus against the ArbCom remedy or the block either. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

True - it is, I think, accurately described as "contentious." Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question Rock. To be honest, If I were in Giano shoes, I believe I would've been blocked for quite a while (concerning incivility). Mind ya, Misplaced Pages wouldn't miss me. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket makes a good point. If the statements that we are talking about had been made by any other user who was under an ArbCom civility restriction, such user would likely have been blocked by now, as the comments were clear breaches of civility. In fact, if a new user had said those kinds of things, the user probably would have been blocked on sight, with no ArbCom remedy required. --Elonka 23:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? Have you seen the comments that are regualarly made on Arbitration case pages? The involved parties, and uninvolved users regularly make heated comments that veer into the range of personal attacks and bullying. Sometimes Arbitrators even join in. :-( FloNight♥♥♥ 18:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the overwhelming majority "do not give a shit about Giano, or ArbCom, or IRC or the multitude of other political machinations" does not make it ok for every little decision regarding those things to be left to an even smaller number of people, nor does it make it recommendable that the actions of those people are left ignored and unquestioned. WP:Civility is clearly just a distraction, and if it wasn't originally intended as such, it has become little more than a formality of excuse through its use here. The ArbCom have reaped the fruits of their creative chaos, the ridiculous decision to draw a target on the head of such a prominent editor with so many admin enemies. Moving on, the reality of wikipedia is Giano does matter. He matters for a whole host of reasons, some of which are conspicuously important to large groups of wikipedia editors. And why would it suddenly be a problem that personality and social connections matter? These are the things that propelled Giano's "enemies" to their current positions. Those are even the prime forces behind ArbCom elections. Everything on wiki is social. It's preposterous and random to single out individual instances of this ... and I'm sure Giano would rather wikipedia ran on merit and natural justice. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've no prob with Giano personally. But somethings gotta give, between him & the Arbitrators. No offense to anyone (particularly Giano); but I don't buy the He/she is too important to Misplaced Pages argument. Nobody is inexpendable, nobody. PS- I sure hope this grudge match ends soon. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Give me 1 Giano-like content creator over 10 process-obsessed politicos any day. That may sound harsh, but we are about writing an encyclopedia, right? _D.D.J.Jameson 18:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I haven't taken any sides. But somethings gotta give. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I apologize for being unclear. My last was meant to address that point. If "something has to give", let it be the process-oriented politicos. _D.D.J.Jameson 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wowsers, that would mean simultaineous multiple blocks. I ain't no betting type, but I can't see this happening. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• If Giano is not a politico, then why does create so much political drama? Why does he have a joke sockpuppet and run it for ArbCom? Why does he aggressively demand that anyone who disagrees with him resigns? Write at Misplaced Pages Review? Insult an ordinary user who nominated his silly and unreferenced article to AfD? Like the other Giano supporters, I invite you to my talk page to come and help me understand you opinion. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think apoc raises a good point. If Giano were to simply stop trying to bring down every single admin and arbitrator and only wrote in the article space, we wouldn't be here now. The big issue for me is the pervasive desire that his own opinion of how Misplaced Pages should work is the only valid one; and that anyone who disagrees with it is an enemy that must be brought down. He refuses to accept that reasonable people may disagree, and is not above using bullying tactics to encourage his perceived enemies to go away. I fail to see how his article edits have somehow "cancelled out" the drama he creates every few months. His definition of a bad admin is "any admin that has ever expressed disagreement with him over any issue" and his beef with ArbCom is solely that they have sanctioned him. He takes any attempt to curb his rudeness as prima facia evidence that those who are unhappy with his incivil comments are somehow wrong for Misplaced Pages, often with no evidence to support such a belief. Its like the equation in his head is "disagrees with Giano = must be driven out of Misplaced Pages". If he cannot voluntarily restrict himself to places in Misplaced Pages where he doesn't explode with vitriol and hate, what should we do next? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The big question: Is Giano a Diva, Egomaniac, a potential usurper of Jimbo Wales? Or, is he a whipping boy, for corruptive Administrators? GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, considering this is right under my comment, I take objection to "corruptive Administrators" following my comment. Merely being weary of the entire mess doesn't make one "corruptive". The dichotomy you present is a false one. I find that Giano does generally awesome work in the article space. I have never accused him of being a Diva, Egomaniac, or Usurper. I have commented exactly 4 times in my career on Giano's situation, all within the past 3 days and three times in this thread. I am just going weary of reading page after page of diffs where Giano attempts to harass and bully others into accepting his version of how things should run. Any aspect of wikipedia he doesn't like must be shut down or driven away, like IRC, the ArbCom, every single administrator. Any administrator who tries to stop this is caught in a catch-22. Giano's situation can only be judged by "neutral" admins, and any admin who finds that Giano has behaved in an unseemly manner is by definition "non-neutral". I can't believe I can be considered "corruptive" because I have grown weary of this situation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatcha sore about. The Questions are mine. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that; however I am not sure if reducing this to an "us vs. them" dispute, or turning what is a complex issue into a binary one is helpful. It isn't just "people who hate Giano" vs. "Giano's crew" or anything like that. There's quite a lot of people in the "people who have nothing personal against Giano but recognize that there are behavioral issues which are detrimental to the Project and want to see this resolved in a manner that allows Giano to continue do good work but minimizes the hostility and drama he tends to initiate" group. I know its not a great simple name, but I dare say that many belong in this camp, and would like to see a resolution to this issue that does not involve "picking sides" between the "Giano is an egomaniac" camp and the "All admins are corrupt" camp (neither of which most people belong to!!!) --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't want Giano or the Administrators/Arbitrators getting banned either. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think Apoc2400 has hit the nail on the head. Giano and his little group of eager supporters are no different, to the average editor, than the so-called admin cabals that he so persistently denounces. The only difference is that his political launchpad was from from his outstanding article contributions, while admins' "power" comes from their extra tools. Both wish to shape Misplaced Pages in the way they - not the community - they, wish it to be run. Both groups have enough of a powerbase to get away with behavior that our average editor would not. From the perspective of the nobody who has been blocked for minor incivility, and no one jumps to his defense, then an admin protects his talk page to silence him, our remarkable indulgence of Giano's behavior is no different to the "one rule for admins and another for everyone else" that we all know exists. But, of course, the silent majority has no voice, instead we deem consensus among the noisy minority who have a vested interest (and I include myself in that). So the idea that Giano is some sort of champion of the community taking on a corrupt ArbCom is laughable. The community might be unhappy with ArbCom, but I would bet my bottom dollar it does not support Giano's brand of demagogy. What they support is consistency and fairness for everyone in good standing. For as long as Giano, or any of the powerful admins he is in perpetual conflict with, are given special treatment, neither have any right to claim community consensus. Rockpocket 21:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

When the community held an RFC on Arbcom, these were Giano's only two posts to it. Durova 21:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

How do people think admins get their powers and pass RfA? They usually have to have done at least some solid work on the encyclopedia, nowadays usually some featured or good articles, and usually continue to do it. Most of Giano's contributions must have been more than 6 months or a year ago, for the last 3-6 months he's just spent his time tinkering with a few articles and spending literally hundreds of edits in a row having a go at people and so on. Sticky Parkin 17:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

They typically have to do some solid article work, certainly, but few if any admins can claim the quantity and quality of content Giano provides. There is no argument there. It is almost inevitable that our best, or most active, of administrators tend to have a reduction in content provision. I am far from being our best or most active administrator, yet my content provision has decreased significantly since I've had the tools. This observation is often made as criticism, but I think that misses the point. Misplaced Pages is a broad church, and we need all sorts of contributors. The creative writers who work on a single article up to FA status are to be valued, but so are the wikignomes, the referencers, the template makers, the photographers, and so are the admins that do all the janitorial work, and so are those that help defuse disputes, and the Arbs who do their best to keep things on an even keel. Suggesting those who collect FA stars are more important to the project is no different that suggesting admins are more important. They are not. Everyone who contributes according to our policies (including WP:CIVIL) is important, and everyone should be treated accordingly. Likewise, irrespective of the number of FA stars you have, or the length of time you have the tools, if you can't work within the policies that the rest of us can, then we can do without you. Rockpocket 20:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• (To Rockpocket) Giano and I aren't especially close. I'm just a normal editor who happens to find what he does (writing) of extremely high value. I don't approve of the tone of many of his posts, but I find his tone far less offensive than the tactics of those who oppose him. If that makes me his minion or something, I guess I have to say, so be it. _D.D.J.Jameson 21:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Giano and I aren't especially distant. I'm just a normal editor who happens to find what he does (chronic incivility) to be extremely disruptive. I disapprove of the tone of many of his posts, and find that far more offensive than the tactics of those who oppose him. If that makes me his enemy or something, I guess I have to say, so be it. (the point I'm trying to make is that in good faith or bad, there are those who occasionally agree or disagree, and there are those that ubiquitously disagree or agree with whatever Giano does. I'm not suggesting all those who voice an opinion are paid up members of a campaign, but lets not kid ourselves, there are plenty who are.) Rockpocket 23:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• (To Sticky Parkin) I've kept out of this, but I must respond to Sticky Parkin's astonishing argument a couple of posts above. SP, you speak at random about RFA and about Giano's article work; you put forward wild guesses, and they're in error. That's the kind interpretation of your post. Lots of wikignomes get adminned, and the notion that they "nowadays usually" need to have produced "some featured or good articles" is quite.. ..quite divorced from reality. Look at this recent RFA for instance—see how the opposes don't ask for anything approaching good or featured articles, indeed, but simply for any writing—see the bureaucrat stepping in and closing it as successful anyway, on the argument that we need wikignome admins too? As for Giano's lack of article creation over the last 3—6 months, that is hilariously wrong. Take a look at a little thing called Winter Palace, huh? And this little lot are mostly recent, too. Not to mention.. but what's the point. As anybody knows who is interested in Giano's articles (you don't appear to be), he's been working as hard as ever over the past 3—6 months. You need to apologize. Bishonen | talk 20:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

I'm entitled to my opinion and think it has some validity in recent months. Check out giano's last several hundred contribs to see how 'hilariously wrong' my opinion is.:) We will just have to agree to disagree. Yes he's worked on a few of his own articles in his user space, then launched them, and spent 1000s of edits in recent months outside article space saying various things about conspiracies, having a go at people etc. Not saying my- by any means lol, or admin's contribs are perfect, just saying I don't see where Giano's being a content contributor in particular has been in recent months/6 months, which people are saying he is. They need to actually take a look at hundreds of his recent edits.Sticky Parkin 22:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You're entitled to your idiocy, but not to promulgate it onwiki. Giano writes his articles in user space before moving them to mainspace, does he? So, is that like not really writing them? Bishonen | talk 22:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

A Fresh Start

The Misplaced Pages Civility page wp:civil offers a solution not yet discussed. So far the solutions have been block, block, block, and when that doesn't work block some more. Now more of the same is being dicussed, as if blocking is the only solution.

Disputes and misunderstandings can lead to situations where one party feels injured by the other. That is what I see happening here, hurt feelings. For some people, it may be crucial to receive an apology from those who have offended them. Offering an apology may be the key to resolving this conflict. It provides the opportunity for a fresh start, and can clear the air when one person's perceived incivility has offended another.

So instead of discussing whether to block, how long to block, who can block, etc. why not try to make a clean start? I understand that demanding an apology is almost never helpful and often inflames the situation further, so I am simply suggesting that one be made. I have no idea if Giano will accept such an apology after all that has occurred, but i think it is worth the attempt. Uncle uncle uncle 21:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano accepting an apology? I'm guessing there's editors out there who are waiting for apologies from him. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Coverup?

At User talk:Giano II I have just learned that there may have been an incident involving some of the same folks during WP:ACE2007 where some inconvenient edits were Oversighted, not for valid policy reasons, but for political reasons.(Comments by: Thatcher , Avruch , Fred Bauder ) This whole blocking of Giano II looks like it could be retaliation against a whistle blower, or other political games. If Giano II has been making valid accusations of wrongdoing, the targets of those accusations should definitely not be the ones checkusering or blocking Giano II. Now, I am ready to listen to reason. Who can provide an explanation of who did what? Please continue discussion at User talk:Giano II, not here. Thanks. Jehochman 21:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought Giano was blocked for incivility. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

He was, and I was totally unaware of the matter he is bringing up now. Fred Talk 21:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it was poor form to bring this tangent to the AE page. Isn't it enough of a circus already? Avruch 21:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So Jehochman, in other words, because some tangentally related incedent happened some time ago, which may or may not have been appropriate, Giano is hereby excused from any and all incivility that he may have ever expressed, both before this incident and afterwards? Or is there someother reason why this Red Herring has been introduced into this discussion? Does bad behavior by others instantly excuse bad behavior by Giano? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a logical fallacy. I would not excuse Giano's incivility at all, but if you read the comments at User talk:Giano II you will see that Giano is alleging election fraud and then a campaign of harassment against him to discourage him from investigating and uncovering the fraud. I am equally concerned that Giano might be telling the truth, or that he might be laboring under a grave misunderstanding. Either way, we need to get to the bottom of it. Jehochman 22:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't read the details of Giano's talk page. His accusations are serious and I am trying to get my head around them now. This discussion there is quite serious. The discussion at his talk page certainly trumps all; it is my opinion that one way or another, someone may have some explaining to do. If the comments Giano left at his talk page are true, then action needs to be taken. If they are NOT true, then action needs to be taken for that as well. I agree, these new comments change everything... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Before any sanctions are applied to a user, it is necessary for administrators to fully investigate the matter. That is why I have brought this up. Whether Giano's allegations are true or false, they are relevant to making a proper decision here. Jehochman 22:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No they are not. Giano had information he had not shared with us. Now he has shared it. However, this discussion is about his compliance with the civility parole he is under. He has violated that parole and appropriate enforcement should be applied. Fred Talk 00:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Something I'd like to know is whether FT2 was aware of the information that Giano had on the oversighted edits - I think that could well be an important point. If he did, well there's concerns about the neutrality of the block, if he didn't then the block was legitimate. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

How do you suggest we get at that information Ryan? If we just ask FT2 "did you know?" should we accept his answer? Reluctant to even recuse himself in the recent Rfar and like Fred above, unable to see obvious conflicts of interest, doesn't exactly inspire trust - which would be necessary to accept a no answer on trust. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Those edits have been available on WR for a long while, and I suppose everybody (perhaps except Giano) knew of that. I don't know what makes Giano think there's now a big revelation that only he has to make. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You think Giano didn't know that? Who or where do you think he's likely to have got the info from or those who gave it to him were likely to have got it from, directly or indirectly?:) Sticky Parkin 00:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. It's all a conspiracy!:) Giano is alleging a conspiracy against him being the reason why people are unhappy with him, when in fact another user was blocked at the time of the previous arbcom elections over these issues (rightly or wrongly.) Giano got in trouble at the time of the previous elections over the User:!! debacle and his revealing private/off-wiki correspondence. He had nothing to do with these particular issues at the time nor is there any reason to think anyone had it in for him before now over their beliefs about 'what he knows' about this particular issue, except in as much as he knows a lot of things because it's politically expedient for some people to make sure he knows about it for the reason that him knowing is the best way to ensure it gets out. If Giano can prove he personally has always been at the centre of this oversight malarkey and hasn't invoked people's ire for other reasons or due to his ongoing behaviour I would be Slain in the Spirit. There are plenty of other reasons why he's annoyed people or got in trouble. He has no direct personal involvement in this particular thing except in as much as someone has passed the info to him, due to him being a wiki-dissident. This is a Hail Mary pass IMHO and Giano has no reason to resort to it as it's all going his way anyway, and I didn't think he would be blocked again for the moment. Instead he's lashing out against those who've tried to block him this time, there's no need. Sticky Parkin 00:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)